Yockey on the United States

Editor’s note: The following is my abridgement of Francis Parker Yockey’s chapter on his country, the United States, from Imperium: The Philosophy of History and Politics.

I recently speculated that William Pierce didn’t include a chapter on the US in his history of the white race because he didn’t want to put it in a bad light. Since I have been recommending Pierce’s Who We Are as a must-read, the absence of such a chapter moved me to use Yockey to fill the gap, but this very intelligent man failed to mention the American Christian ethos as a key factor in understanding the empowerment of Jewry.

Ben Klassen mentioned the anecdote that when he wanted to name the chosen people, some pious Christians of his adopted country, the US, put up all kinds of resistances. These fiascos led Klassen to conjecture that perhaps Christianity was a psyop to keep us from seeing the depredations of the subversive tribe. On this point, the Ukrainian-born Klassen had a better grasp of the American tragedy than Yockey, though intellectually he was Yockey’s inferior.

If I am to choose the below entry for a new collection of essays once I can relaunch my Daybreak Press, my above words will have to accompany that compendium as well. Yockey’s abridged chapter is over eight-thousand words long. But it never hurts to read Yockey’s Imperium. Yesterday when I read this chapter I was surprised that Yockey mentioned the Hellstorm Holocaust committed by his compatriots in Europe. He had a privileged mind, on a par with Pierce and Revilo Oliver. It is a real disgrace to our cause that, before I was two years old, Yockey died at the age of forty-two, in an American prison.

 

______ 卐 ______

 

The leaders who brought about the union were principally Washington, John Adams, Franklin, Pinckney, Rutledge — and, above all, Alexander Hamilton, the greatest statesman ever to appear in America… Hamilton wanted a monarchical State, on European traditionary lines, but Rationalist ideology and propaganda was too strong to be overcome and these demanded a republic.
 

The American ideology

This organic individualism was formulated in written constitutions and in a literary-political literature. Typical of the spirit of this literature is the Declaration of Independence. As a piece of Realpolitik, this manifesto of 1776 is masterly: it points to the Future, and embodies the Spirit of the Age of Rationalism, which was then ascendant in the Western Culture. But, in the 20th century, the ideological part of this Declaration is simply fantastic: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”

In 1863, the charlatan Lincoln delivered an address in which he speaks of America as “a nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” He then went on to say, referring to the War of Secession, then in progress, “We are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure.”

This ideology continued right into the middle of the 20th century, and was even, after the First and Second World Wars, when a totally different and utterly incompatible outlook was in the ascendant, offered to the home of the Western Civilization as a model to imitate somehow. It was only the entirely fortuitous material success which attended American arms that enabled this ideology to survive late into a century which had outgrown it, and, not because it is important as a political outlook, but solely because it is an effective technique for splitting and disintegrating Europe, must this archaic ideology be examined here.

The Declaration of Independence is saturated with the thinking of Rousseau and Montesquieu. The basic idea, as in all Rationalism, is the equating of what ought to be with what will be. Rationalism begins with confusing the rational with the real, and ends by confusing the real with the rational. This arsenal of “truths” about equality, inalienable and inherent rights, reflects the emancipated critical spirit, devoid of respect for facts and tradition. The idea that governments are “instituted” for a utilitarian purpose, to satisfy a demand of “equal” men, and that these “equal” men give their “consent” to a certain “form” of “government,” and then abolish it when it no longer serves the purpose — is pure Rationalistic poetry, and corresponds to no facts that have ever occurred anywhere. The source of government is the inequality of men — this is the fact…

Contrary to a certain messianic feeling in America, America is not completely unique. Its morphology and destiny are readable in the history of other colonies, in our own, and in previous Cultures.

The reference in the Independence Declaration to government as having the purpose of effecting the “safety” and “happiness” of the population is more Rationalistic nonsense. Government is the process of maintaining the population in form for the political task, the expression of the Idea of the Nation.

The quotation from Lincoln still reflects the Age of Rationalism, and his contemporary Europe could feel and understand such ideology, although, since State, Nation, and Tradition existed still in Europe, even if weakened, there was always resistance to Rationalist ideologies, whether of the Rousseau, Lincoln, or Marx variety. No nation was ever “conceived in liberty,” and no nation was ever “dedicated to a proposition”…

The ideas of the constitution were mostly derived from the writings of Montesquieu. The idea of “separation of powers” in particular comes from this French theorist. According to this theory, the powers of government are three, legislative, executive, and judicial. Like all crystal-dear Rationalistic thinking, this is muddy and confused when applied to Life. These powers can only be separated on paper, in Life they cannot. They were never actually separated in America, although the theory was retained that they were. With the onset of an internal crisis in the 30’s of the 20th century, the entire power of the central government was openly concentrated into the executive, and theories were found to support this fact, still calling it “separation”…

In the 20th century, when the Rationalist type of ideology had been discarded by the advancing Western Civilization, the American universalizing of ideology turned into messianism — the idea that America must save the world. The vehicle of the salvation is to be a materialistic religion with “democracy” taking the place of God, “Constitution” the place of the Church, “principles of government” the place of religious dogmas, and the idea of economic freedom the place of God’s Grace. The technic of salvation is to embrace the dollar, or failing that, to submit to American high-explosives and bayonets.

The American ideology is a religion, just as was the Rationalism of the French Terror, of Jacobinism, of Napoleonism. The American ideology is coeval with them, and they are completely dead. Just as inwardly dead is the American ideology. Its principal use at the present time — 1948 — is in splitting Europe…

The ideology of a people is merely intellectual clothing. It may, or may not, correspond to the instinct of that people. An ideology may be changed from day to day, but not the character of the people. Once that is formed, it is definite and influences events far more than they can influence it. The character of the American People was formed in the Secession War.
 

The War of Secession, 1861–1865

Politics in America in the European sense there was none…

This dependence of party-organization upon a supply of funds brought about the situation in which rich men were able to make the party-leaders and party-organizations run things to please them. Even a party-leader in office was not independent, for the rich man alone could keep him there. The name given in the books to this type of government is plutocracy, the rule of money. This was the American form during the whole 19th century, and it continued to the year 1933.

The source of the wealth of the richest men in America during the period 1789–1861 was manufactures and trade. The richest men were found in the Northern states, the manufacturing and trading places. The Southern states had a totally non-plutocratic organization. A society arose there on a patriarchal and hierarchical basis. Half of the population belonged to the African race and was held as slaves by white land-owners and planters. Slavery was less efficient than industrialism, for capitalistic purposes, because the slaves enjoyed complete security — protection against illness, unemployment, old age — whereas the Northern factory-workers were as completely unprotected in these respects. This gave the Northern industrialist one more advantage over the humanitarian slave-owner. The industrialists’ “cost of production” were cheaper. Factory-workers who were wiped out by illness or other catastrophe were not the responsibility of the industrialists — they had only the disadvantages of slavery, whereas the Africans in the South had its advantages as well…

Once any issue, from whatever sphere of Life it derives, becomes of sufficient intensity to become political, other motives come in to support it. Thus Yankee ideologists fastened on the idea of slavery and made it a war-issue for the masses in the Northern states. The financial labor-exploitation of the Northern capitalists was held up as humanitarianism, and the patriarchal care of the Southern planter was branded as cruelty, inhumanity, and immorality. The ideological side of this war presaged coming American war-conduct…

This War was the largest-scale war in the Western Civilization up to the First World War. The armies numbered millions, the theater of war embraced more than a million quadrate kilometers. Railroads and ironclads entered tactics for the first time.

Napoleon had calculated, from his experience on 150 fields, that the ratio in warfare of the spiritual to the material is as three is to one. Assuming this to be true, the defeat of the South was the result of Yankee material superiority of more than three times.

This war had many lessons for Europe, but was mostly ignored in the European capitals, which were still in the nationalistic petty-state period, and not capable of large-space thinking. It showed the enormous military potentiality in America, it showed the Yankee character, which was thenceforth to be the American spirit, it showed the enormous will-to-power of the New York plutocracy — it showed, in short, that a base for a world-power had been laid here. The only European power which noticed it was the only one capable at that time of large-space thinking — England, and England’s attitude toward the War was throughout one of benevolent neutrality toward the South, to say the least. England was prevented only by the attitude of Russia from declaring war on the Yankee government…

 
The history of American imperialism

The great Hamilton, at the very beginning of the union, had counseled the annexation of Cuba, and others demanded it during this decade, but it was not to become actual until 1900. But at this time, occurred an event that ranks with the great audacities of History: the manifesto to be known as the Monroe Doctrine was delivered in the year 1823. This manifesto announced that America was preempting an entire half of the globe for itself… South America presented an inherently uninteresting field for further imperialistic ventures by the powers, and it thus happened that a tradition of success was slowly established in American foreign policy. The Calvinistic feeling spread that America was predestined to rule whatso it would. Almost a century elapsed before the “doctrine” was challenged, and by that time, the military force was present in America which its maintenance presupposed…

During the 30’s Americans had infiltrated into the Mexican Empire, and by a successful revolt, they separated the vast area of Texas from Mexico. Less than ten years had gone by before this area was annexed by the union. An area larger than any West-European power had been seized with only small-scale fighting. In 1842, by treaty with England, the northwest boundary was extended. Oregon was definitely incorporated in 1846…

After the War of Secession, the American union smashed the French attempt to add Mexico to its empire, and allowed Maximilian to be shot by a revolutionary firing squad. Also shortly after that War, Alaska was acquired by Yankee imperialism. This territory, of almost a million quadrate kilometers, was purchased by America from Russia for a trivial sum. In the same decade the border with Mexico was again rounded off, this time by a small money payment instead of a war, in the transaction known as the Gadsden Purchase.

American imperialism was everywhere active during the second half of the 19th century: Hawaii, Chile, Cuba, Colombia, China, Japan, Siam, Samoa. The American fleet bombarded foreign ports at will in the colonial areas of the world, and sent landing parties ashore when necessary to secure submission to American commercial-imperialistic or territorial demands…

The Spanish-American War marked, what the War of Secession had foreshadowed, the emergence of America as a world-power. This made seven world-powers at that time; the others being England, France, Germany, Austria, Russia, Japan. Among these, only Russia, Germany, and England were in the first rank. America was excluded solely by reason of its geographical isolation. It could act against a world power in the Eastern hemisphere only with allies, and in a subordinate role. This was the situation at the beginning of the 20th century, the Age of Annihilation-Wars…

For its empire, America had fought only one large-scale war. The first war, that of 1775, was for independence, and the War of 1812 is more accurately called the Second War for Independence. The War of Secession extended the Yankee empire southward, removing an emerging power from the North American continent, and this was the sole serious imperial war Yankee America had to undertake in its century of empire-building. For the landing parties all over Central America, the Mexican War, the fighting in Japan, China, and in the Pacific islands, the Spanish War, all had had slight casualties. Never before had an imperial power acquired so much territory and influence for such a trivial price in blood.

Yet this was not understood, either in Europe or in America. Americans were either embarrassed or smug about their empire. Europeans either did not know about it, or thought it was the result of wise and mature political-thinking. Neither Europeans nor Americans wrote or thought much about the new world-power, its potentialities, its soul, its imperial abilities.

Certainly no power in Europe, no government, no person, in 1900 thought that it was within the realm of possibility that within two decades an American army of two millions would be transported across the Atlantic to fight in an intra-European war.
 

The American Revolution of 1933

From 1890 on began the Jewish invasion of America. Within the next fifty years, the number of Jews in America increased from negligible proportions to a number estimated between 8 and 12 millions. New York City became in this period predominantly a Jewish capital. Of this Jewish immigration, approximately 80 per cent were Ashkenazic Jews. American reaction inevitably began against the phenomena which inevitably accompanied the immigration of these vast numbers with their own world-feeling, who immediately began to influence the American life in every sphere and on every plane. A clever propaganda making use of the American ideology to serve Jewish purposes was the answer to this reaction. America became a “melting pot,” after the phrase of the Jew Israel Zangwill, and the purely quantitative American ideology lent this picture convincingness in an America still in the money-obsession stage.

The word “American” was changed by this same propaganda to mean an immigrant who had improved his personal circumstances by coming to America, and to exclude the native American who was displaced by the immigrant. If the latter showed resentment, he was called “un-American.” Thus native American movements like the second Ku Klux Klan, formed in 1915, as an expression of the reaction of the American organism to the presence of the foreign matter, were more or less successfully called “un-American” by the propaganda organs in America, which even by that time had come under strong Culture-distorting influences.

The words “ America” and “American” were stripped of all spiritual-national significance, and were given a purely ideological significance. Anyone who came to America was ipso facto an American, regardless of the facts that he retained his own language, lived in his own racial-national group, nourished his old connections with Russia, South-eastern Europe, or the Eastern Mediterranean, and had a purely economic relationship with America. Americans of native stock however, the representatives before history of the new unit in the Western Civilization called the American People, were not ipso facto Americans. If they nourished any national feelings of exclusiveness whatever, they were “un-American.”

This transvaluation of values is an invariable accompaniment of Culture-Distortion, and represents a superpersonal life-necessity of the Culture-distorting element. The values of the host-Culture, or host-colony, are hostile to the life of the Culture-distorter, and for him to adopt them would be to disappear as a higher unit. Assimilation of the Jews would mean that there would no longer be a Jewish Idea, a Jewish Culture-State-Nation-People-Religion-Race. In fighting against nationalistic feelings in America, the Jewish Idea is fighting for its continued existence against the hostile Western Civilization. It is a tribute to the political skill of the leaders of Jewry that they were able in the 20th century to identify their Jewish Idea with America, and to label the nationalism of America with the term “un-American.”

* * *

Culture-distortion in America, as elsewhere in the Western Civilization, was only able to twist, warp, and frustrate the soul of the host. It could neither kill it nor transform it. American autopathic tendencies, arising from the disintegratory influence of Rationalism and Materialism, are the source of the possibilities of which the Culture-distorter made use. His technique was to push them ever further in the direction of decadence, but at the same time he could always refer to Rationalistic doctrines, themselves products of the Civilization-crisis, as a semi-religious basis for his disintegratory work.

Thus the “equality” rhetoric of the Independence Declaration of 1775, and pious platitudes from Lincoln and other party-politicians, were used as the basis of the “tolerance” propaganda which teaches Americans that they must not in any way, not even in thought, discriminate against the Jew. This propaganda is spread from the highest official places down to the level of home, school, and church…

The whole result has been to put the native American completely on the defensive, to confer a privileged position on the Culture-distorter, who embodies at the highest potential the idea of alienness, and to disintegrate progressively the American national feeling. Culture-distortion to this degree would not have been possible in Europe, because of the higher Culture-sensitivity and the higher exclusiveness of Europe, even under democratic-materialistic conditions…
 

World-outlook

Music is seldom heard in America, having been replaced by the cultureless drum-beating of the Negro. As an American “musicologist” put it, “Jazz rhythm, taken from wild tribes, is at the same time refined and elementary and corresponds to the disposition of our modern soul. It incites us without pause, like the primitive drum-beating of the prayer-dancer. But it does not stop there. It must at the same time take account of the excitability of the modern psyche. We thirst for quickly exciting, constantly changing, stimuli. Music has an excellent, time-honored means of excitation, syncopation.”

American literature, which produced Irving, Emerson, Hawthorne, Melville, Thoreau and Poe, is today entirely represented by Culture-distorters who make Freudian and Marxist motives into plays and novels.

American family life has been thoroughly disintegrated by the Culture-distorting regime. In the usual American home, the parents actually have less authority than the children. The schools enforce no discipline, nor do the churches. The function of forming the minds of the young has been abdicated by all in favor of the cinema.

Marriage in America has been replaced by Divorce. This is said with no paradoxical intent. In the large cities, statistics show that one of every two marriages ends in divorce. Taking the country as a whole, the figure is one in three. This situation can no longer be described as Marriage, since the essence of Marriage is its permanence. The divorce trade is a large business upon which lawyers, private detectives and other charlatans thrive, and from which the spiritual standards of the nation suffer, as reflected in the emotionally indifferent attitude of American children.

The Western erotic, grounded in the chivalry of Gothic times, with the concomitant honor-imperative of the centuries of Western history, has been driven out. The ideal of Wedekind, the Culture-distorter who preached compulsory Bohemianism in Europe around the turn of the 20th century, has been realized by the Culture-distorting regime in America. Inverted Puritanism has arisen. In this new feeling, the Puritan outlook is retained in sexual matters only to scoff at it in the cinema and in literature. Baudelaire’s thesis “In evil only lies bliss” has been taken over by the distorter, and has resulted in the progressive disintegration of American morality in all spheres. In this effort, jazz music is a useful appurtenance, for this primitive beating is nothing but the expression of lust in the world of sound, a world which is capable of expressing all human emotions, both higher and lower.

A part of this general perversion is the physical-youth-mania that has been spread abroad in America. Both men and women, but especially the latter are inwardly obsessed with the idea of remaining physically young in appearance. Advertising plays upon these fears and commercializes them. The “girl” is the ideal feminine type. The mature woman aspires to be a girl, but not vice versa. A “girl” cult has come into existence, which, together with cinema, revue, jazz, divorce, disintegration of the family, and uniformity, serves the vast purpose of destroying the national feelings of the American.

Together with uniformity is the technique of excitement. The press presents every day new sensations. For the general purpose, it is quite immaterial whether the sensation is a murder, a kidnapping, a government scandal, or a war-scare. But for particular, political purposes, the latter sensations are the most effective, and during the years of preparing the Second World War, the distorter administered every day a new “crisis.” The process increased until the population was ready to welcome the outbreak of war as a relief from the constantly mounting nervous tension. When the War did appear, the distorter immediately called it a “World War” despite the fact that only three political powers were engaged, and the strongest powers were not involved. It was, of course, intended to rule out the possibility in the American mind of any localizing of the War, and to prepare for American intervention.

The straining after excitement, pleasure, and constant motion has created a vast night-life, a crime underworld which staggers the imagination of Europeans, and a hurrying from one thing to another which excludes the possibility of contemplation, or individual culture. Almost one per cent of the entire population makes its living from professional crime. The art of reading has been taken away from the Americans, since the idea is to “do something.” Individual culture is generally strangled under such conditions, and the prevailing mass-ideals impose limitations on the form of such personal culture as is attained. All history, all thought, all events, all examples, are used to prove the soundness of the ideal of mass-life, and of the American ideology.

* * *

In the Rationalistic and Materialistic atmosphere of 19th century America, there was only a very weak link with the sublime Western Gothic traditions of the spiritualized meaning of life, but under the Culture-distorting regime since 1933, America has been completely disenchanted. On every plane, the ultimate reality of the world and life is materialistic. The aim of life is “happiness.” This must be so, since life itself is only a physico-chemical process, and articles appear which treat as imminent the discovery of a “formula” for life by “scientists.”

The contractual side of the old Puritan religion, which regarded Man and God as keeping accounts with one another, has been pushed to its uttermost limits, and all living is simply changing legal relationships. Patriotism is simply a legal duty to the world-proposition called America, which has been equated with the mission of distorting the entire Western Civilization through a process of “educating” Europe. Heroism in the Western sense is unknown, and the hero whom the population admires is a capitalist en grand who has converted a great part of the public wealth into his private resources, or else a smiling film actor. Such a thing as a great spiritual movement or a national rising is not understood in America, first because it has had nothing of the kind in its history, and secondly, because the distorter has made all such things ridiculous. The American is taught that life is a process of cultivating friendly relations with all, joining as many clubs and secret societies as possible, and confining all his thought and effort to the personal plane.

The “happy-end” is the ideal of life and literature. There is no thought of bearing up under the bitterest and most crushing blows of Fate. These are overcome by avoiding one’s glance. The lucky man, and not the man who has suffered in silence and become stronger, is the central figure in the happy-end literature.

The opposition between the Western idea of Destiny-fulfillment and the Culture-distorter’s disintegrating substitute called “happy-end” is actually the focal idea of the world-outlook that he wishes to force upon the prostrate American nation and its parent Western Civilization. The irreconcilability between these two ideas extends from the personal plane upward through national economy, society, State, religion and ethics.

The great Western Life-feeling is the necessity of being one’s self, of preserving that within one which cannot be compromised, which is synonymous with Soul, Destiny, Honor, Race. The distorter’s idea of “happy-end” is opportunistic, weak, degenerate, and revolting to the Western honor-feeling. The empty, smiling, face, the uniform mind, the senseless chasing after noise, movement, and sensation, the obsession with moneymaking and money-spending, the rejection of all spiritual standards of attainment — all this merely reflects the basic interpretation of Life as a seeking for a happy-end. For happiness one will compromise anything, give anything, sell anything. Happiness becomes synonymous with pursuit of economic and sexual motives. It absolutely excludes any profitless struggle against odds, merely in order to be one’s self. Understanding and respect for the tragedy of Life, the magic of Life, the power of the Idea, are precluded by the happy-end feeling.

Any idea of this kind is quite impossible for Europeans in the 20th century, even if they had not seen the horrible catastrophe of the Second World War, in which Europe succumbed to the double-invasion of barbarians and distorters. No great artist, no religionist, no deep thinker, has ever deluded himself that Life has the meaning of “happy-end.” In miserable and crushing times, the Western man trains himself rather to bear whatever blows Fate may have in store for him. He does not talk of either happiness or unhappiness, and he does not try to avoid facts by looking away from them. Looking away is no solution, but only a postponement of a later reckoning. Happy-end has a purely negative significance. It is a denial of Life, an escape from Life. It is thus a deception, and an untruth.

The racial chaos in America, which, deliberately perpetuated by the distorter, delivers the American nation more securely into his hands, is only possible because of the de-nationalizing program for Americans. This program begins with propaganda in the schools to the effect that America was not colonized, cleared, conquered, or built by Americans, but by a great conglomeration of aliens. The contributions of the Jew and the Negro are taught as the decisive formative influences on the “American dream.” In New York State, Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice is forbidden to be taught in the schools. The promoting of the anti-spiritual and anti-national “happy- end” idea, with its economic and sexual obsession, and its social atomism, is the prerequisite of continuing the whole program of degeneration.

Races and nations express themselves at their highest potential in strong individuals, who embody the prime national characteristics, and acquire immense historical symbolic significance. Therefore, the efforts of the Culture-distorter to strangle American nationalism take the form of an offensive against individualism, not against freakish, insane, individualism, but against the only kind that is historically effective — individualism which concentrates in itself a higher Idea, and is devoted to its service.

Thus the highest social value is “getting along with people.” Strong characteristics of independence or strength must be put aside, and the ideal of mediocrity embraced. The universal spirituality, the same intellectual nourishment for all classes, replaces the natural, organic stratification of society. This nourishment again has only a quantitative measure of value. Just as the best product is the one most advertised, so the best book is the one that has the largest sale. The best newspaper or periodical is the one with the largest circulation. This equation of quantity with quality is the complete expression of the mass-idea, the denial of individuality.

A natural corollary of the happiness-sickness is pacifism. Only intellectual pacifism is meant, for the Culture-distorter knows how to make use of the fighting instincts of the native American type. Intellectual pacifism is war-propaganda. The enemy is identified with the idea of war itself, and to fight him is to fight war.

Naturally Hollywoodism is incapable of rousing a population to sternness, sacrifice, heroism, renunciation. Therefore American armies in the field in the Second World War had to be supplied with a vast, never-ending stream of picture-books, chocolate, soft-drinks, beer, juke-boxes, moving-pictures, and playthings of all sorts.

Fundamentals cannot be evaded, and so it was that despite eight years of preparation by the most intense bombardment of emotional artillery the world has ever seen, through film, press, stage, and radio, there was no war-enthusiasm whatever in the American population, and a negative feeling in the armies which were massed against Europe in the Second World War. Out of 16,000,000 men who were impressed into the armed forces from start to finish of America’s brief military participation in the Second World War, less than 600,000 were volunteers. Almost twice this many volunteers out of half as many people were raised in one year in one European nation in the First World War. A large part of the American volunteers had already been notified of imminent conscription, and volunteered for appearance’s sake…

The organic unit which regards the disintegration of America as a part of its own life-mission is, at its very widest base, only ten per cent of the population of the American Union. And within this ten per cent, it is a comparatively few brains, and a reliable stratum of leaders who actualize the policy of the Jewish Culture-State-Nation-Religion-People-Race. To these leaders, the great mass of their own people are mere soldier-material in the non-military war against the Western Civilization all over the world. Nor need these brains be regarded as animated by any malice or evil motives. To them the Western Civilization is the repository of the collective evil and hatred of the world, the source of a thousand years of persecution, a cruel and unreasonable monstrosity, a sinister force working against the Jewish Messiah-idea.
 

Propaganda

Thus, in America, the country where mass-thinking, mass-ideals, and mass-living dominate the collective life, propaganda is the prime form of dissemination of information. There are no publications in America addressed solely to the intellect; a Culture-distorting regime rests on its invisibility, and independent thinking by strong individuals is ipso facto hostile to such a regime. Nor are there any publications which purvey only facts. Any facts, and any viewpoints, are co-ordinated, with their presentation, into the ruling propaganda-picture.

The techniques of American propaganda is inclusive of every form of communication. The leading instrument is the cinema. Every week, some 80,000,000 people attend the cinema in America, there to absorb the propaganda message. During the period of war-preparation, 1933–1939, the cinemas produced an endless succession of hate pictures directed against the European Revolution of 1933, and its 20th century outlook and actualizations… It should be said that in America, effectiveness of propaganda is measured solely by the numbers which it reaches, since the mass-thinking ideal has triumphed over individuality, quality, and intellectual stratification of the population.

Fourth is the book press. Only such books may be printed as represent or fit into the larger propaganda framework. Thus an edition of the Arabian Nights for children was recently withdrawn in America because some of the contents were said to have the possible effect of prejudicing readers against Jews, and one objectionable illustration showed an unscrupulous merchant with the features of a Jew, in the story about Aladdin and his lamp. During the years 1933–1939, the larger policy of the distorter was entirely unquestioned in any paper, book, or magazine of wide circulation.

Next are the universities and colleges. The mass-idea, as applied to education means that “higher education” is generalized to an extent that the high academic standards of Europe make impossible. America, with only half the population of the Western homeland, has more than 10 times as many institutions granting academic degrees. Actually what is disseminated in these institutions is primarily a slightly more esoteric version of the prevailing ideological and propaganda world-view of the Culture-distorting regime…

The propaganda-picture has two aspects, the domestic, and the foreign. The domestic propaganda is a revolutionary one, supporting the American Revolution of 1933. All ideological revolutions, from the French in 1789, through the 19th century ones in Europe, down to the Bolshevik Revolution in 1918, have the tendency to take on the form of a cult. In France Reason-worship was the focus of the religious frenzy; in Russia, it was machine-worship, according to the God Marx. The American Revolution of 1933 is no exception. The central-motive of the new cult is “democracy.” In the propaganda-picture, this concept takes the place of God, as the center and ultimate reality. Thus, a Supreme Court Justice, speaking to the graduating class of a Jewish college, said in 1939: “In a larger sense there is something more important than religion, and that is the actualization of the ideals of democracy.”

The word has been endowed with religious force, and has in fact attained to the status of a religion. It has become a numen, and cannot be the subject of critical treatment. Apostasy or heresy bring immediate response in the form of a criminal prosecution for sedition, treason, income tax evasion, or other allegation. The saints of this cult are the “Founding Fathers” of the War for Independence, particularly Jefferson — despite the fact that they uniformly detested the idea of democracy, and were nearly all slave-owners — and also Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt. Its prophets are journalists, propagandists, film stars, labor-leaders, and party-politicians. The fact that the word “democracy” cannot be defined is the surest evidence that it has ceased to be descriptive, and has become the object of a mass-faith. All other ideas and dogmas of the propaganda-picture are referred to “democracy” for their ultimate justification.

Immediately below “democracy” in importance is “tolerance.” This is obviously fundamental to a Culturally-alien regime. Tolerance means primarily tolerance of Jews and Negroes, but it can mean the cruelest persecution of Europeans or other persons with a viewpoint differing fundamentally from the prevailing mass-idea. This persecution is social, economic, and, if necessary, legal.

To continue the atomizing of the host-people… feminism is preached, pursuing the mass-uniformity idea into the realm of the sexes. Instead of the polarity of the sexes, the ideal of the merging of the sexes is promulgated. Women are taught to be the “equal” of men, and the Western recognition of sexual polarity is branded as the “holding down” and “persecution” of women.

Pacifism is preached as a part of the propaganda. This is of course not true pacifism, for that supervenes without anyone preaching it, and often without anyone knowing it, and always without anyone being able to do anything about it. In practice, doctrinaire pacifism is always a form of war-propaganda. Thus, in America, Europe means war, and America means peace. American imperialism is always a crusade for peace. A prominent member of the regime recently spoke of America’s “duty to wage peace around the world.”

“Religious tolerance” is also a part of the propaganda, and it is so interpreted as to mean religious indifference. Dogmas and doctrines of religion are treated as quite secondary. Churches are often merged or separated for purely economic considerations. When religion is not merely a compulsory weekly social amusement, it is a political lecture. Co-operation between the churches is constantly being organized, and always for some utilitarian aim, having nothing to do with religion. What this means is: the subservience of religion to the program of Culture-distortion.

* * *

Far more important to Europe than the propaganda about domestic affairs in America is that about foreign affairs.
The numen “democracy” is used also in this realm as the essence of reality. A foreign development sought to be brought about is called “spreading democracy”; a development sought to be hindered is “against democracy,” or “fascistic.” “Fascism” is the numen corresponding to evil in theology, and in fact they are directly equated in American propaganda.

The prime enemy in the propaganda picture was always Europe, and especially the Prussian-European spirit which rose with such self-evident force in the European Revolution of 1933 against the negative view of life, with its materialism, money-obsession, and democratic corruption. The more surely it appeared that this Revolution was not a superficial political phenomenon, a mere transfer of one party-regime for another, that it was a deep spiritual, total revolution, of a new, vital spirit against a dead spirit, the more violent became the hate propaganda directed against Europe. By 1938, this propaganda had reached an intensity, both in volume and in emotional frenzy, that could not be surpassed. Ceaselessly the American was bombarded with the message that Europe was attacking everything worthwhile in the world, “God,” “religion,” “democracy,” “freedom,” “peace,” “America.”

“Aggressor” was another leading word in the intellectual assault. Again, it did not relate to facts, and was only allowed to work one way as a term of abuse. “International morality” was invented and formulated so that the enemy of the Culture-distorter became ipso facto immoral. If they could not find political reasons for their politics, they were all the more resourceful in creating moral, ideological, economic, and esthetic reasons. Nations were divided into good and bad. Europe as a whole was bad when it was united, and if Culture-distortion was able to secure a foothold in any European land, such land became thereby good. The American propaganda machine reacted with venomous hatred against the European partitioning of Bohemia in 1938. Every European power which had participated in the negotiations was denounced as evil, aggressive, immoral, anti-democratic, and the rest of it…

Any words whatever that had good connotations were linked with the leading catchwords of the picture. Thus Western Civilization was too impressive to treat as a hostile term, and it was used to describe parliamentarism, class-war, plutocracy, and finally — Bolshevik Russia. It was insisted by the propaganda machine during the time of the battle at Stalingrad in the Fall of 1942 between Europe and Asia that the Asiatic forces represented Western Civilization while the European armies were the enemies of Western Civilization. The fact that Siberian, Turkestani, and Kirghizian regiments were being used by the Bolshevik regime was adduced as proof that Asia had saved Western Civilization

This propaganda announced that 6,000,000 members of the Jewish Culture-Nation-State-Church-People-Race had been killed in European camps, as well as an indeterminate number of other people. The propaganda was on a world-wide scale, and was of a mendacity that was perhaps adapted to a uniformized mass, but was simply disgusting to discriminating Europeans. The propaganda was technically quite complete. “Photographs” were supplied in millions of copies. Thousands of the people who had been killed published accounts of their experiences in these camps. Hundreds of thousands more made fortunes in post-war black-markets. “Gas-chambers” that did not exist were photographed, and a “gasmobile” was invented to titillate the mechanically-minded.

We come now to the purpose of this propaganda which the regime gave to its mentally-enslaved masses. From the analysis in the 20th Century Political Outlook, the purpose is seen to be only one: it was designed to create a total war in the spiritual sense, transcending the limits of politics, against the Western Civilization. The American masses, both military and civilian, were given this mental poison in order to inflame them to the point where they would carry out without flinching the post-war annihilation-program. In particular: it was designed to support a war after the Second World War, a war of looting, hanging, and starvation against defenseless Europe.
 

The conduct of American foreign affairs from 1933

As was noted in the outline of the general thesis of Culture-distortion as a form of Culture-pathology, the Russian anti-Semitic outbreaks after the Russo-Japanese War, 1904–1905, brought about a rupture of diplomatic relations with the United States. Since no other racial, cultural, national, or religious outbreaks of this kind directed against non-Jewish elements in Russia, or in any other country, had ever caused an American government to break relations, this can only be explained as an example of Culture-distortion. The actual inspiration for this startling international move came from certain elements in the entourage of the then President Theodore Roosevelt, which belonged to the same Culture-State-Nation-People-Race as the victims of the pogrom.

Historians will be able to trace the appearance of Culture-pathology through American foreign policy from about 1900. The immediate period under consideration however is that since 1933, a year of fate for both America and Europe.

The first positive act of a non-routine nature by the revolutionary regime, after its preliminary consolidation of power, was the diplomatic recognition of Bolshevist Russia. It was explained away to a loudly resentful American public as being merely a routine act, without ideological significance, and quite harmless politically. Actually it was the beginning of a cooperation between the two regimes which continued with only surface interruptions until the Russian and American armies met in the heart of the Western Civilization, and London and Berlin had been thrown into the dust.

In 1936, the Bolshevist revolution and the 20th century Western authoritarian spirit met on the battleground of Spain. The officials of the America-based regime privately expressed their sympathy with Red Spain. The unequivocal opposition of the Catholic Church to American aid for Bolshevist Spain prevented intervention. The Catholic Church in America has twenty million adherents, and the Culture-distorting regime had not sufficiently consolidated its power to engage in a domestic conflict of the type that would have resulted. It was about to contest its second national election, and large organized groups were still in the field against it. A blunder in foreign policy could have been fatal at that stage.

The perfection of its election technique continued the regime in office. In October, 1937, the open preparations for a Second World War were begun. It was officially announced that the American government was going “to quarantine aggressors.” The propaganda organs had identified the word “aggressor” with Europe, and the custodians of the European Future. To satisfy nationalist elements, Japan was included in the term, but the regime continued to equip Japan with essential raw materials for its war-industry, while at the same time it refused to sell raw materials to Europe, and boycotted importation into America of European goods originating in areas not dominated by the Culture-distorting regime.

By the fall of 1938, the stage was set for a World War…

In the period after the Second World War, American foreign policy retained its continuity. Occupied Europe was treated as an area to be devastated, factories were dismantled of machinery, which was given to Russia, and other installations were blown into the air as part of a deliberate policy of destroying the industrial-potential of Europe. The population was treated as sub-human, and a large-scale starvation policy was introduced, which continues in 1948.

Although America was exporting food all over the world, not being under any obligation of honor or morality to do so, nevertheless it refused to send enough food to maintain human life into occupied Europe. Human rations were fixed far below qualitative and quantitative minima for health, and within a short time, malnutrition, skin-ailments, infections, and degenerative diseases began to kill millions. In the first wild exultation of its “victory,” the American army forbade its personnel even to speak to the population.

This continued until court-martials became too numerous, and it was discarded while in its place was substituted a violent hate propaganda among the American troops. The population of Europe was treated as totally and essentially inferior to the conquering Americans. It was officially referred to as “the indigenous population.” In public buildings special sanitary facilities were set aside for them, while the superior Americans and Negroes used their own… One European was sentenced to two years imprisonment for a hearsay reference to a Jewish member of the American forces as a “dirty Jew.”

The ghastly dishonor attending the American occupation of Europe is sufficient to show the presence of Culture-alien elements, for no Western nation or colony could possibly proceed to this type of conduct. Its very inner constitution, its historical essence, a thousand-year honor tradition, would preclude the possibility. What Western nation would reduce the women of another to the legal status of concubines, and forbid marriage between its members and those of another Western nation? Yet this is what the American command did. It permitted concubinage, and forbade marriage. As a result of this policy, venereal disease assumed plague proportions in occupied Europe.

In the presence of this starving, disease-ridden European population, the American armies and their families, guarded by guns and barbed wire, live in the houses which their bombs did not damage, and eat an unrationed diet. The spiritual qualities developed by these conditions are not the highest. In the early phase of the occupation, waste food and clothing were actually burned in the physical presence of the starving and freezing “indigenous population.”

When, in the summer of 1947, a food revolt threatened, one of the American governors announced officially that the American people had no duty in fact, in international law, or in morals, to feed its subject population in occupied Europe, and that if a revolt did occur, it would be put down with bayonet and machine gun. That which is here described is only partial, but the pattern of the facts is universal in American-occupied Europe. It continues today, and has a deep and wide influence on European thinking on the most important level…

Among a population which could furnish it with millions of the best soldiers in the world, the Americans conduct themselves with a ferocity and an affected superiority calculated to alienate the “indigenous population” forever. Finding themselves captors of the best military leaders in the Western Civilization, to whom they should go to school, they proceed to hang them for the crime of opposing American armies in the field.

In short, instead of increasing American power, the occupation-policy has decreased American power in every way. This shows conclusively that the motivation of this conduct is outside politics. Its motivation is derived from the complete, deep, and total organic irreconcilability between a High Culture and a parasitic organism within it. This relationship is one transcending ordinary international politics.

It is somewhat similar to the relationship between the Roman legions and the barbarians of Mithridates and Jugurtha, or to that between the Crusaders and the Saracens, or between Europe and the Turk in the 16th century. It is deeper even than these, because of the revenge-twist introduced into the soul of the parasite through centuries of silent sufferance of the unassailable superiority of the host.

When defeated Europe — and in particular, the most vital part of it, the bearer of the grand European Idea of the 20th century — lay at the feet of this-totally alien conqueror from a Culture of the past, no feelings of magnanimity, chivalry, generosity, mercy, were in his exultant soul. There was only there the gall which he had been drinking for a thousand years while he had bided his time under the arrogance of the alien Western peoples whom he had always considered, and still considers, barbarians, goyim.

Seen from this standpoint, the American armies were just as completely defeated as the armies from the mother-soil of the Culture. The real victor was the Cultural alien, whose triumph here over the entire Western Civilization marked the highest refulgence of his destiny.
 

The future of America

The origin of America contains its Future. As Leibnitz said, “The Present is loaded with the Past, and pregnant with the Future”…

The true form of the war was disclosed to everyone in 1945, when the victors emerged as the Culture-distorting regime in America, and the Mongols in the Kremlin. For the first time in world history, the world was divided between two powers. Europe had lost the war, and achieved the unity in defeat which it had not entirely reached in its victories. Europe passed temporarily into the same status that China and India formerly occupied spoils for powers from without…

When the American National Revolution takes political form, its inspiration will come from the same ultimate source as the European Revolution of 1933.

Bolton on Yockey

Editor’s note: Below we reproduce Kerry Bolton’s eight-thousand word ‘A contemporary assessment of Francis Parker Yockey’, originally published in three instalments in Counter-Currents in September and October 2010.
 

“Thus, the Liberation Front now states to Europe its two great tasks: (1) the complete expulsion of everything alien from the soul and from the soil of Europe, the cleansing of the European soul of the dross of 19th century materialism and rationalism with its money-worship, liberal-democracy, social degeneration, parliamentarism, class-war, feminism, vertical nationalism, finance-capitalism, petty-statism, chauvinism, the Bolshevism of Moscow and Washington, the ethical syphilis of Hollywood, and the spiritual leprosy of New York; (2) the construction of the Imperium of Europe and the actualizing of the divinely-emanated European will to unlimited political Imperialism.” — Francis Parker Yockey [1]

Francis Parker Yockey (aka Ulick Varange) has enjoyed a renascence over the course of several decades, although his thought was never permitted to die with him in a San Francisco jail in 1960 thanks to the stalwart efforts of individuals such as Willis Carto, William Pierce, and H. Keith Thompson, as well as the ongoing efforts of others such as Michael O’Meara. Yockey has been the subject of a major biography,[2] and is discussed at length in Martin Lee’s book on “neo-Nazism.”[3] This writer’s Renaissance Press also carries a range of Yockey materials including hitherto unpublished manuscripts.[4] Christian Bouchet in France carries material by and about Yockey, and Alfonso De Filippi’s Italian translation of The Proclamation of London in a nicely bound volume is a sterling effort.[5]

Yockey has been criticized by some “Rightist” luminaries such as David Duke, who has stated that Willis Carto’s introduction to Yockey’s magnum opus, Imperium, is of more value than the work itself,[6] while the revisionist David McCalden stated that Imperium served as a good doorstop. Certainly, Yockey’s philosophy does not fit neatly into the racial-nationalist paradigm of genetic reductionism. Like Oswald Spengler’s epochal Decline of the West,[7] to which Yockey owed a great intellectual debt, Yockey focused on spirit and culture above and beyond genetics.

Just as Spengler was criticized by National Socialist race theorists, primarily by Alfred Rosenberg, who nonetheless conceded that The Decline of Tthe West was “great and good” – although by then redundant philosophically;[8] Yockey was not well received by American National Socialist George Lincoln Rockwell, who condemned “Yockeyism” as “dangerous” and “evil.” Although James Madole of the National Renaissance Party was very much influenced by Yockey’s ideas.[9]

Those who continue to regard Yockey’s paradigm as a seminal method for analyzing events, the lasting contribution of Yockeyan philosophy is that of “cultural morphology,” developing Spengler’s theory of “culture as an organism,” and in particular formulating the diagnostic method of “culture pathology,” which includes the concepts of “culture distortion,” “culture parasitism,” and“culture retardation.”[10]

Yockey’s diagnostic method allows one to see beyond the surface of problems which are often otherwise reduced to simplistic formulas of White vs. Black, Christian vs. Jew, and concepts as banal as “Freedom vs. Communism,” which preoccupied even the “Radical Right” of Rockwell, et al.; the arguments of which make for a poor showing when confronted by the pseudo-intelligentsia of the Left and its corporate allies.

It was this perspective which for example allowed Yockey to see, contra much of the rest of the “Right” during the Cold War era, why the US is ultimately a much more pervasive, subversive, and degenerative force for the destruction of Europe than a military invasion by the USSR. This is why Yockey referred to the “Bolshevism of Washington,” a phrase that much of the “Right” from Yockey’s time to our own, would find utterly incomprehensible, if not outright “evil.”

During 1948–1949, when his Imperium and Proclamation were published, Yockey still considered the twin outer enemies of Europe to be the “Bolshevism of Moscow and of Washington.” By 1952, Yockey had come to consider the latter the prime enemy. In an unsigned article in Frontfighter commenting on Point 5 of the European Liberation Front program, it is stated that the opposition to “the virus of Jewish Bolshevism [is] more readily understood, and therefore not as dangerous” as the “ethical syphilis of Hollywood.”[11]

As Yockey saw it, the primary problem with Moscow’s Bolshevism at the time was its leadership of a world colored revolt against the white world, reminiscent of Spengler’s scenario in The Hour of Decision.[12] However, Yockey, like many German war veterans such as Maj. Gen. Otto Remer, whose growing Socialist Reich Party was advocating a neutralist line during the Cold War, saw the primary danger not of a Soviet invasion of Europe but of Europe being subordinated to the US under the guise of protection from “Communism.”

The Liberation Front does not allow Europe to be distracted by the situation of the moment, in which the two crude Bolshevisms of Washington and Moscow are preparing a Third World War. In those preparations, the Culture-retarders, the inner enemies, the liberal-communist-democrats are again at their posts: with one voice the churchills, the spaaks, the lies, the gaulles, croak that Washington is going to save Europe from Moscow, or that Moscow is going to take Europe from Washington. There is nothing to substantiate this propaganda.[13]

Yockey’s reorientation towards an openly pro-Soviet position vis-à-vis the USA, was determined by the seminal event of the 1952 Prague Treason Trial,[14] which Yockey saw as Moscow’s definitive break with the “Jewish” faction within Bolshevism which had been vying for control with the Slavic faction, that at heart remained true to the soul of Russia.[15]

In fact, as Yockey now discerned, the breaks between Moscow and New York had proceeded immediately after World War II when Stalin declined to subordinate himself to American internationalist schemes for a new world order via the United Nations Organization and the Baruch Plan for the supposed “internationalization” of atomic energy, which Stalin perceived would in fact mean US control. This laid the basis for the Cold War,[16] despite the insistence of many on the “Right” that there was an ongoing secret alliance between Jews in Washington and Jews in Moscow to rule the world with the Cold War being a cunning plan to bamboozle the goyim.

Some saw through this nonsense from the start, either under Yockey’s influence or based on their own perceptions of Realpolitik. These included the insightful staff writers at the periodical Common Sense, Wilmot Robertson of Instauration, Dr. William Pierce, and the eccentric but sincere and determined James Madole of the National Renaissance Party.[17]

This then was Yockey’s new orientation in regard to the USSR and the USA during the Cold War:

The treason trials in Bohemia are neither the beginning nor the end of a historical process, they are merely an unmistakable turning point. Henceforth, all must perforce reorient their policy in view of the undeniable reshaping of the world-situation. The ostrich-policy is suicide. The talk of “defense against Bolshevism” belongs now to yesterday, as does the nonsense of talking of “the defense of Europe” at a period when every inch of European soil is dominated by the deadly enemies of Europe, those who seek its political-cultural-historical extinction at all costs.[18]

And further, those who sought the liberation and unity of Europe could play off the USA against the USSR; if they pursued a policy of Realpolitik as people such as Remer[19] were themselves advocating:

Henceforth, the European elite can emerge more and more into affairs, and will force the Jewish-American leadership to render back, step by step, the custody of European Destiny to Europe, its best forces, its natural, organic leadership. If the Jewish-American leaders refuse, the new leaders of Europe will threaten them with the Russian bogey. By thus playing off Russia against the Jewish-American leadership, Europe can bring about its Liberation, possibly even before the Third World War. [20]

It was fatuous enough to ask Europe to fight for America, it was silly enough to ask it to “defend itself against Bolshevism”… Is there one European — just one — who would respond to this war-aim? But today, openly, without any possible disguise, this is the raison d’être of the coalition against Russia, for Russia has named its chief enemy, its sole enemy, and the sly peasant leadership of pan-Slavs in the Kremlin is not given to frivolity in its foreign policy.

We repeat our message to Europe: no European must ever fight except for sovereign Europe; no European must ever fight one enemy of Europe on behalf of another enemy.[21]

With the publication of The Enemy of Europe in Germany in 1953, primarily as a manual in foreign policy for the Socialist Reich Party, Yockey talked openly of a “new Europe-Russia Symbiosis,” with the occupation of Europe by Russia not resulting in the Russification of Europe, but in the Westernization of Russia.[22]

Of course the world situation turned out radically different from what Yockey and others expected, with the implosion of the USSR and the emergence of a unipolar world under the USA. However, Yockey correctly understood cultural threat of the USA to Western Civilization, and this is his continuing relevance for analyzing the geopolitical situation.

One might say that Yockey underestimated the strength of Western culture distortion vis-à-vis Soviet military power. What is crucial to keep in mind that, like individuals, entire states and Civilizations will turn to the soft option, rather than face hard choices. The method used by the culture distorter is what Aldous Huxley describes as control by “pleasure,” an intoxicant that is rotting the soul of the entire world, with militant Islam as a vestige of resistance from a Fellaheen Civilization, and Great Russia the nearest remainder to an unsullied people that might yet break “the dictature of money.”

The US ruling stratum is conscious of its anti-Western world revolutionary mission and deliberately promotes cultural degeneration as part of its agenda. To call the USA the “leader of the West” or any other such term, is not only a misnomer, it is a travesty; the USA is the Anti-West par excellence, the Great Satan, as many Muslims refer to it.

That the Soviet bloc, with its Spartan values, its martial and patriotic ethos, its “socialist realism” in the arts, was in ruins several decades after Yockey’s death, while the decadent USA emerged as the unchallenged super-power, attests to the tendency of nations – like individuals – to opt for the soft option, rather than face hard realities, despite the expectations of Yockey and also the staff of Common Sense, who closed up shop in the 1970s, convinced that it wouldn’t be long until the Soviets vaporized New York, thus the time for writing articles was past.[23]

However, if we accept Spengler’s theory of the cyclic course of civilizations, one might reasonably expect a renascence of Russian authority and religiosity that will confront US hegemony and force Russia to face new realities and forge new alliances, especially given the scenarios for conflict that can easily arise vis-à-visChina and all Asia.[24]

However, for the moment, the US stands victorious, as the harbinger of cultural death throughout the world, spreading the “ethical syphilis of Hollywood,” the “spiritual leprosy of New York,” and the “Bolshevism of Washington,” which outlasted the “Bolshevism of Moscow.”
 

Yockey and Huxley on “soft” totalitarianism

Understanding Yockey’s views of American “ethical syphilis” and “spiritual leprosy” is aided by a familiarity of Aldous Huxley’s 1932 novel Brave New World.[25] Huxley was much more prescient than Orwell and quite precisely described how “world controllers” would impose a global dictatorship not by force of arms, but by the slavery of “pleasure.” The ready availability of sex and drugs would be used to create a narcotized society where everyone is happy with his servile lot. Appraising Brave New World in 1958, Huxley described the regime as:

A world-state in which war has been eliminated and where the first aim of the rulers is at all cost to keep their subjects from making trouble. This they achieve by (among other methods) legalizing a degree of sexual freedom (made possible by the abolition of family) that practically guarantees the Brave New Worlders against any form of destructive (or creative) emotional tension. [26]

In 1984 the lust for power is satisfied by inflicting pain; in Brave New World, by inflicting a hardly less humiliating pleasure.[27]

A drug called “Soma” maintains social conditioning. Huxley calls this drugged state “not a private vice” but “a political institution.”[28]

It was the very essence of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. But this most precious of the subjects’ inalienable privileges was at the same time one of the most powerful instruments of rule in the dictator’s armory. The systematic drugging of the individuals for the benefit of the State… was a main plank in the policy of the World Controllers… [29]

In Brave New World, population control is enforced and non-reproductive sex, including mass orgies, or “orgy-porgys” where participants go into a frenzy induced by narcotics and repetitive rhythms.[30] These orgies also serve as religious rites or “solidarity” events.

Yockey had a similar understanding of the workings of soft totalitarianism. In The Proclamation of London, he writes:

The degradation of social life did not merely happen, it was planned, deliberately fostered and spread, and the systematic undermining of the entire life of the West continues today.

The instruments of this assault and the weapons of propaganda, press, radio, cinema, stage, education. These weapons are controlled at this moment in Europe almost entirely by the forces of Culture-disease and social degeneration.

The “chief fount” is Hollywood, which “spews forth an endless series of perverted films to debase and degenerate the youth of Europe” after having successfully destroyed the youth of America.[31]

Concomitantly “a vicious literature” promotes the “destruction of healthy individual instincts, of normal familial and sexual life, of disintegration of the social organism into a heap of wandering, colliding, grains of human sand.”

The message of Hollywood is the total significance of the isolated individual, stateless and rootless, outside of society and family, whose life is the pursuit of money and erotic pleasure. It is not the normal and healthy love of man and wife bound together by many children that Hollywood preaches, but a diseased erotic-for-its-own sake, the sexual love of two grains of human sand, superficial and impermanent. Before this highest of all Hollywood’s values everything else must stand aside: marriage, honor, duty, patriotism, sternness dedication to self to a higher aim. This ghastly distortion of sexual life has created the erotomaia that obsesses millions of victims in America, and which has now been brought to the Mother-soil of Europe by the American invasion.[32]

Keep in mind that Yockey was writing this in 1948, not last month, or even a decade ago. We now look back on the era Yockey was describing with such misgivings and consider it a time of innocence and purity in comparison to our own. Who can deny that this process of “social degeneration” has multiplied beyond the ability to calculate?

Yockey also wrote of the rise of “feminism” at a time when we would now barely recognize any such thing as “feminism” in comparison to our own day:

Hollywood-feminism has created a woman who is no longer a woman but cannot be a man, and a man who is devirilized into an indeterminate thing. The name given to this process is “the setting from” of woman and it is done in the name of “happiness,” the magic word of the liberal-communist-democratic doctrine.[33]

Yockey died on the eve of the 1960s with its manufactured “cultural revolution.” Yet he surely would have regarded the counter culture’s sexual liberation, feminism, and drug use not as a “revolution” against the US establishment, but merely as a phase of its pursuit of world domination through the destruction of traditional culture and morals.
 

The Cultural Cold War

The origins and implementation of the strategy can now be historically traced with great precision. The seeds of the 1960s were planted as early as 1949, at the start of the Cold War, when Stalin gave the first indications that he was not going to continue the wartime alliance as a subordinate partner in a United Nations-based World State.

The CIA, with funding from the Rockefellers and the like, gathered a gaggle of old Trotskyites, Mensheviks, and other Leftists disaffected with Stalin’s uncouth Slavic “Bolshevism.” The result was the Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF) under the direction of “lifelong Menshevik” Prof. Sidney Hook (who would be awarded the Medal of Freedom by Pres. Reagan, for services to US hegemony), along with his old mentor Dr John Dewey,[34] and luminaries such as Bertrand Russell (who once advocated a pre-emptive nuclear strike on the USSR to ensure “world peace”), Stephen Spender, and Arthur Koestler. “Counter-culture rebels” recruited by the US Establishment at the same time included Gloria Steinem[35] and Timothy Leary.[36]

The founding conference of the CCF was held at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in 1949, as a provocation to a Soviet-sponsored peace conference at the Waldorf supported by a number of American literati. The CIA article on this states:

A handful of liberal and socialist writers, led by philosophy professor Sidney Hook, saw their chance to steal a little of the publicity expected for the [pro-Soviet] Waldorf peace conference. A fierce ex-Communist [should read anti-Stalinist] himself, Hook was then teaching at New York University and editing a socialist magazine called The New Leader. Ten years earlier he and his mentor John Dewey had founded a controversial group called the Committee for Cultural Freedom, which attacked both Communism and Nazism. He now organized a similar committee to harass the peace conference in the Waldorf-Astoria.[37]

Through the CCF, the CIA was able to control much of the cultural life of the West during the Cold War era, and subsidized influential magazines such as Encounter.[38]

When the CCF was shut down after the implosion of the Soviet bloc, other institutions were established, this time under private auspices, including in particular the Soros network[39] and the National Endowment for Democracy, the latter another collaboration between neo-Trotskyites,[40] the US Government, and neo-conservatives; both Soros and NED working in tandem to create revolutions, much like the manipulated “youth revolts” of the 1960s, to install regimes favorably disposed to globalization and privatization, especially in the former Soviet bloc.

The cultural front remains pivotal to the expansion of American global hegemony, the spreading of cultural pathology being far more insidious and intrusive than bombs or even debt, as Yockey was among the first to warn, while much of the rest of the “Right” including Rockwell’s American Nazis aligned themselves with the US Establishment vis-à-vis the USSR and American hegemony.

While America sought to export its lethal “culture” in the form of jazz and Abstract Expressionism, to cite two primary examples, Stalin condemned “rootless cosmopolitanism” and was thus fully aware of the consequences of America’s cultural exports. Indeed “Abstract Expressionism” became the de facto “state art” of the American regime of the “culture distorters,” just as “socialist realism” was the de jure state art of the USSR.

Abstract Expressionism was the first specifically so-called “American” art movement. Jackson Pollock, the central figure, was sponsored by the Congress for Cultural Freedom. He had worked in the Federal Artist’s Project, 1938–42, along with other Leftist artists, painting murals under Roosevelt’s New Deal regime, or what Yockey called the second “1933 Revolution.”[41] Abstract Expressionism became the primary artistic strategy of the Cold War offensive against the “socialist realism” sponsored by the USSR from the time of Stalin. As in much else, Stalin reversed the original Bolshevik tendencies in the arts, which had been experimental and, as one would expect from Marxism, anti-traditional.[42] On the other hand, Social Realism, which had been the popular American art form until the 1930s, was by the late 1940s being displaced as art critics and wealthy patrons began to promote the Abstract Expressionists.[43]

Many of the theorists, patrons, and practitioners of Abstract Expressionism were Trotskyists or other anti-Stalinist Leftists, who were to become the most ardent Cold Warriors. Modernist art during the Cold War became a factor in the USA’s world revolution. In 1947 the US State Department organized a modernist exhibition called “Advancing American Art” which was intended for Europe and Latin America, reaching as far as Prague.[44]

The two individuals who did most to promote Abstract Expressionism were art critic Clement Greenberg and wealthy artist and art historian Robert Motherwell[45] who was vigorous in propagandizing on the subject. Greenberg was a New York Trotskyite and a long-time art critic for The Partisan Reviewand The Nation. He had first come to the attention of the art world with his article in The Partisan Review, “Avant-Garde and Kitsch” in 1939,[46] in which he stated that art was a propaganda medium, and condemned the socialist realism of Stalinist Russia and the volkisch art of Hitler’s Germany.[47]

Greenberg was a particular enthusiast for Jackson Pollock, and in a 1955 essay “American Type Painting,”[48] he lauded Abstract Expressionism and its proponents as the next stage of modernism. Greenberg considered that after World War II the US had become the guardian of “advanced art,” just as others were to regard America as the only genuine vehicle for a “world revolution” as a stage for world socialism, as opposed to the USSR.

Greenberg became a founding member of the American Committee for Cultural Freedom (ACCF)[49] and was involved with “executive policymaking.”[50] He continued his support for the CCF even after the 1966 exposé by the NY Timesand Ramparts that the CCF and magazines such as Encounter had been sponsored by the CIA. Typical of a good Trotskyite, he continued to work for the US State Department and the US Department of Information. [51]

Another key institution in the service of culture distortion is the Rockefeller dynasty’s Museum of Modern Art. John J. Whitney, formerly of the US Government’s Psychological Strategy Board, was a trustee of the Museum, and he supported Pollock and other modernists.[52]

Note the connection with psychological warfare. William Burden, who joined the museum as chairman of its Advisory Committee in 1940, worked with Nelson Rockefeller’s Latin American Department during the war. Burden had been president of the CIA’s Farfield Foundation which channeled funds to sundry fronts and lackeys; and in 1947 he was appointed chairman of the Committee on Museum Collections, and in 1956 as MoMA’s president. [53] Other corporate trustees of MoMA were William Paley of CBS, and Henry Luce of Time-Life Inc. both of whom assisted the CIA.[54] Joseph Reed, Gardner Cowles, Junkie Fleischmann, and Cass Canfield were all simultaneously trustees of MoMA and of the CIA’s Farfield Foundation. There were numerous other connections between the CIA and the museum, including that of Tom Braden, who had been executive secretary of the museum through 1947–1949 before joining the CIA.[55]

In 1952 MoMA launched its world revolution of Abstract Expressionism via the International Program which had a five year annual grant of $125,000 from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, under the direction of Porter McCray, who had also worked with Nelson’s Latin American Department, and in 1950 as an attaché of the cultural section of the US Foreign Service.[56] Russell Lynes, writing of this period stated that MoMA now had the entire world to “proselytize” with what he called “the exportable religion” of Abstract Expressionism.[57]

Communism is gone, but the cultural Cold War continues, now packaged as the “liberation” of states deemed not suitably “democratic.” America has its own version of Trotsky’s “permanent revolution” which US strategists call “constant conflict.” Maj. Ralph Peters, a prominent military strategist, formerly with the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, appears to have coined the term. Peters has written of this in an article by that name. Peters’ statements definitively show “culture distortion” to be a contrived strategy for global domination; he reminds us that the regime of the culture distorter now has at its disposal technology far more powerful and pervasive than the cinema and literature of Yockey’s time:

We have entered an age of constant conflict…

We are entering a new American century, in which we will become still wealthier, culturally more lethal, and increasingly powerful. We will excite hatreds without precedent.

Information destroys traditional jobs and traditional cultures; it seduces, betrays, yet remains invulnerable. How can you counterattack the information others have turned upon you? There is no effective option other than competitive performance. For those individuals and cultures that cannot join or compete with our information empire, there is only inevitable failure… The attempt of the Iranian mullahs to secede from modernity has failed, although a turbaned corpse still stumbles about the neighborhood. Information, from the internet to rock videos, will not be contained, and fundamentalism cannot control its children. Our victims volunteer.[58]

Peters is stating that this “global information empire” led by the USA is “historically inevitable.” This “historical inevitability” is classic Marx, just as “constant conflict” is classic Trotsky. This is a “cultural revolution,” which is buttressed by American firepower. Peter continues:

It is fashionable among world intellectual elites to decry “American culture,” with our domestic critics among the loudest in complaint. But traditional intellectual elites are of shrinking relevance, replaced by cognitive-practical elites–figures such as Bill Gates, Steven Spielberg, Madonna, or our most successful politicians–human beings who can recognize or create popular appetites, recreating themselves as necessary. Contemporary American culture is the most powerful in history, and the most destructive of competitor cultures. While some other cultures, such as those of East Asia, appear strong enough to survive the onslaught by adaptive behaviors, most are not. The genius, the secret weapon, of American culture is the essence that the elites despise: ours is the first genuine people’s culture. It stresses comfort and convenience–ease–and it generates pleasure for the masses. We are Karl Marx’s dream, and his nightmare. (Emphasis added).

Peters’ zealous messianic prophecies for the “American Century” are reminiscent of Huxley’s Brave New World where the masses are kept in servitude not by physical force but by mindless narcosis, by addiction to the puerile, everything that is, in a word, “American” since the “Second American Revolution of 1933.” Peters continues:

Secular and religious revolutionaries in our century have made the identical mistake, imagining that the workers of the world or the faithful just can’t wait to go home at night to study Marx or the Koran. Well, Joe Sixpack, Ivan Tipichni, and Ali Quat would rather “Baywatch.” America has figured it out, and we are brilliant at operationalizing our knowledge, and our cultural power will hinder even those cultures we do not undermine. There is no “peer competitor” in the cultural (or military) department. Our cultural empire has the addicted–men and women everywhere–clamoring for more. And they pay for the privilege of their disillusionment. (Emphasis added).

The “constant conflict” is one of world Cultural Revolution, with the armed forces used as backup against any reticent state, as in the cases of Serbia and Iraq. The world is therefore to be kept in a state of flux, with a lack of permanence, which Peters’ calls Americas’ “strength,” as settled traditional modes of life do not accord with the aim of industrial, technical, and economic Darwinian linear historical “progress without end.” Peters continues:

There will be no peace. At any given moment for the rest of our lifetimes, there will be multiple conflicts in mutating forms around the globe. Violent conflict will dominate the headlines, but cultural and economic struggles will be steadier and ultimately more decisive. The de facto role of the US armed forces will be to keep the world safe for our economy and open to our cultural assault. To those ends, we will do a fair amount of killing.” (Emphasis added).

Peters refers to certain cultures trying to reassert their traditions, and again emphasizes that this universal culture distortion that is being imposed is one of Huxleyan “infectious pleasure.” The historical inevitability is re-emphasized, as the “rejectionist” (sic) regimes will be consigned to what in Trotsky’s term is the “dustbin of history.” What Yockey called “culture distortion” is even more forcefully described by Peters as an “infection.”

Yes, foreign cultures are reasserting their threatened identities–usually with marginal, if any, success–and yes, they are attempting to escape our influence. But American culture is infectious, a plague of pleasure, and you don’t have to die of it to be hindered or crippled in your integrity or competitiveness. The very struggle of other cultures to resist American cultural intrusion fatefully diverts their energies from the pursuit of the future. We should not fear the advent of fundamentalist or rejectionist regimes. They are simply guaranteeing their peoples’ failure, while further increasing our relative strength. (Emphasis added).

Michael Ledeen (formerly a consultant with the US National Security Council, State Department and Defense Department, now with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, another outfit that works for “regime change”) in similar terms to that of Peters, calls on the USA to fulfill its “historic mission” of “exporting the democratic revolution” throughout the world. Like Peters, Ledeen predicates this world revolution as a necessary part of the “war on terrorism,” but emphasizes also that “world revolution” is the “historic mission” of the USA and always has been. Writing in the “neo-conservative” National Review, Ledeen states:

We are the one truly revolutionary country in the world, as we have been for more than 200 years. Creative destruction is our middle name. We do it automatically, and that is precisely why the tyrants hate us, and are driven to attack us. (Emphasis added).

Like Peters, Ledeen is affirming a fundamental principle of cultural morphology as the study of the life of a culture as an organism, when he refers to the “destructive mission” of America as being something that it does “automatically” (sic); that is to say, that it is the innate characteristic of the American cultural organism to behave in such a manner; an inner organic imperative.

Freedom is our most lethal weapon, and the oppressed peoples of the fanatic regimes are our greatest assets. They need to hear and see that we are with them, and that the Western mission is to set them free, under leaders who will respect them and preserve their freedom.

Ledeen refers to a mission, hence it is seen in such quarters as being of a messianic nature, but of course Ledeen like all other apologists for the global hegemony of culture distortion describes this as a “Western mission,”(sic) which is a complete misnomer, and one calculated to deceive, just like the USA was heralded as the leader of the “Western world” in opposing “communism” during the Cold War when in fact its strategy was to spread Bolshevism in its most destructive — Trotskyite — sense.[59] Ledeen refers to the exporting of revolution as one would think an old Trot die-hard would exhort, yet he claims to speak for American “conservatism,” a phenomenon that Yockey would describe as being an element of “Culture retardation,” of a bankrupt “leadership” stratum, in a nominal sense, that becomes the hireling of the culture-distorter. American neo-conservatism, it should be noted, is itself being a metamorphosis of Trotskyism that had undergone an alchemical change in the distillery of Cold War anti-Stalinism.[60]

Ledeen refers hence in Bolshevik terms to exporting a “democratic revolution” and gives credit to the American regime for having toppled both the Soviet bloc and White rule in South Africa, regimes that in their own way were anachronisms in the “new world order” and therefore had to be removed, as in the case of the Islamic states today, in the interests of what crypto-Mason George H. W. Bush overtly termed the “new world order” in direct reference to the first war against Iraq. Note Ledeen mentions America’s “historic mission” and American’s “revolutionary burden,” again messianic expressions reflecting the same mentality as Marx and Trotsky, and as if to confirm the nature of this mission Ledeen pointedly uses the term “chutzpah” to describe the outlook of the American neo-messianists.

It is time once again to export the democratic revolution. To those who say it cannot be done, we need only point to the 1980s, when we led a global democratic revolution that toppled tyrants from Moscow to Johannesburg. Then, too, the smart folks said it could not be done, and they laughed at Ronald Reagan’s chutzpah when he said that the Soviet tyrants were done for, and called on the West to think hard about the post-Communist era. We destroyed the Soviet Empire, and then walked away from our great triumph in the Third World War of the Twentieth Century. As I sadly wrote at that time, when America abandons its historic mission, our enemies take heart, grow stronger, and eventually begin to kill us again. And so they have, forcing us to take up our revolutionary burden, and bring down the despotic regimes that have made possible the hateful events of the 11th of September.”[61]

American palaeo-conservative, Jospeh Sobran, remarked in 2001 of this world situation that:

Anti-Americanism is no longer a mere fad of Marxist university students; it’s a profound reaction of traditional societies against a corrupt and corrupting modernization that is being imposed on them, by both violence and seduction. Confronted with today’s America, then, the Christian Arab finds himself in unexpected sympathy with his Muslim enemy.”[62] (Emphasis added).

The “Bolshevism of Washington” can today just as easily be called “neo-conservatism.” While this might seem a paradox, even an absurdity, the nature of this can be readily understood by those who have the higher perspective provided by Yockeyan cultural morphology, which refers to the spirit or inner imperative of doctrines, rather than superficialities. “Bolshevism” in such a context might be used to describe anything of an organically destructive nature involving manipulation of the masses. Hence Yockey saw the “democratic” principles of America as fundamentally communistic, both being forms of materialism arising from the same 19th-century Zeitgeist:

The leading values of communism are identical with those of liberal democracy… The sole difference between liberal-democracy and communism in practice was that communism was an intensification of those beliefs where they became political… [63]

The American apologists for global hegemony who now call the same principles that were inaugurated by the “1933 Revolution,”[64] “neo-conservatism,” often indeed come from a Bolshevik or a Menshevik background, as distinct from — indeed antithetical — to what the American philosopher Paul Gottfried has coined “palaeoconservatism.” The “neo-conservative” movement had major input from Trotskyism, often via the Congress for Cultural Freedom, and has remained basically neo-Trotskyite. I have attempted to trace this back from the Trotsky-Stalin split or what Yockey early perceived as a dichotomy of Slavic Bolshevism versus Jewish Bolshevism, through to factions within the American Left led by CIA operative Sidney Hook, and in particular by the Trotskyite factionalist Max Shachtman, these tendencies within the American Left becoming so obsessed with opposing Stalinism that they ended up providing the basis for Cold War ideology and operations, which have been transformed into other methods for the post-Soviet era, continuing to spread what is called the “global democratic revolution.”[65] Indeed not only did Hook and Shachtman end up supporting Cold War US strategy, so did Trotsky’s widow Natalia Sedova, who broke with the Fourth International and commended the USA for its actions in Korea, while positing, like Shachtman, the USSR as being the primary obstacle to world socialism.[66]

From this background emerged the previously mentioned National Endowment for Democracy, taking the place of the redundant Congress for Cultural Freedom in the aftermath of the Cold War, to continue the “Bolshevism of Washington” in new directions. This was founded in 1983 by Shachtmanite Tom Kahn of the AFL-CIO, who had developed a network of contacts with social democrats throughout the Soviet bloc, Africa, and Latin America. Another Shachtmanite, Carl Gershman, became the first president in 1984, and was a founder of the Social Democrats USA. The NED was introduced to Congress by George Agree, and thus gets Congressional funding for its world revolutionary operations.[67]

When Yockey published Imperium in 1948 he viewed Russia as alien to and incompatible with the Western cultural organism and thus as an “outer enemy,”[68] a view that persisted in his final essay, “The World in Flames: An Estimate of the World Situation,” written in 1960, the year of his death. Yockey continued to advocate a neutralist position for Europe in the event of a US-Russian conflict, although had long considered Russian occupation of Europe to be less damaging to the cultural organism than the US occupation, and saw the possibility of Westernising a Russian occupier. He saw the increase in neutralist states as one of the few positive development in the world situation, and in particular the rise of Arab Nationalism, at that time epitomized by “a great and vigorous man,” Nasser.[69] He saw a resurgent Islam as providing a bloc that diminished World Zionism without augmenting “Russian-Chinese power.” Here Yockey was significantly in error in seeing China-Russia as a bloc. There was no Sino-Soviet bloc during Yockey’s time, and there is not one now, despite a temporary pragmatic alliance. The US and China will more likely form a bloc to contain Russia, just as they did during the 1970s. Such a conclusion is within the scope of cultural morphology, although the Russo-Chinese conflict only became apparent shortly after Yockey’s death.[70]

However, as with the emergence of Islam, Yockey also saw that a Latin American bloc would likewise pose a nuisance to plutocracy, and he used the example of Cuba at that time. In recent years Chavez’s Venezuela has actively encouraged the formation of a Bolivarian bloc across Latin America, while repudiating both the USA and Zionism, and significantly has the support of Russia in doing so.[71]

Russia is pregnant with possibilities, and retains the only semblance of a “barbarian horde” with the cleansing power to sweep away the filth of decay that pervades the “West” in its cycle of decline. Russia continues to show itself impervious to “democracy” despite the hapless efforts of the “culture retarders” Gorbechev and Yeltsin. The Russian is eternally a “peasant” as Yockey stated, immune from the decadence of the megalopolis. The way the Russian regime deals with oligarchs is a sign of cultural health. While an organic Russo-Western Civilization may or may not be possible, such a conception is not unheard of, De Gaulle proposing a “united Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals”[72] while another French geopolitical thinker, Olivier Vedrine, considers in contrast to Yockey, Russia to be “European,” calling for a united front.[73] The world situation as it now stands has changed since Yockey’s time, but Yockey’s analytical method remains legitimate, even if it leads to conclusions regarding Russia, China, and the US that differ from Yockey’s own. But, as his reaction to the 1952 Prague Treason Trial shows, Yockey was above all a realist who was able to radically revise his thinking based on changing circumstances.

___________

Notes

[1] Francis Parker Yockey, Proclamation of London of the European Liberation Front (London: Westropa Press, 1949), 29.

[2] Kevin Coogan, Dreamer of the Day: Francis Parker Yockey and the Post-War Fascist International (New York: Autonomedia, 1999).

[3] Martin Lee, The Beast Reawakens (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1997).

[4] Yockey: Four Essays 1939–1960; Frontfighter newsletter; Yockey/Thompson letters to Dean Acheson, 1952; America’s Two Ways of Waging War, 1952; America’s Two Political Factions, 1952; Yockey FBI Report, 1953; Varange — life and thoughts of Yockey, K. Bolton, Biography of Yockey drawing from FBI and Intelligence files, newspaper accounts of his capture and death, rare typewritten MSS of Yockey; Imperium; Enemy of Europe; Proclamation of London.

[5] Yockey, Il Proclama di Londra, trans. Alfonso De Filippi (Genoa, 2005).

[6] David Duke, My Awakening (Louisiana: Free Speech Press, 1999), 474.

[7] Oswald Spengler, The Decline of the West, trans. Charles Francis Atkinson, 2 vols. (London: Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1971).

[8] Alfred Rosenberg, The Myth of the Twentieth Century (California: Noontide Press, 1982), 247.

[9] Coogan, Dreamer of the Day, 508–11. Madole published Yockey’s “Prague Treason Trial” and other essays, and was under the influence of Fred Weiss, a German World War I veteran living in the USA, who was closely associated with both H. K. Thompson and Yockey. (Thompson to Bolton, personal correspondence; also Coogan, ibid.)

[10] Yockey, Imperium, “Cultural Vitalism: (B) Culture Pathology,” 367–439. For a very brief summary of these concepts see: Yockey, The Proclamation of London, 12–13.

[11] “What the Front is fighting for?,” Point 5, Frontfighter, #23, April 1952.

[12] Oswald Spengler, The Hour of Decision (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1963), “The Coloured World Revolution,” 204–30. In this chapter many later Yockeyan themes can be found, including even the concept of a “white Imperium,” and the repudiation of biological “race purity.” Spengler saw “class war” and “race war” as joining together against the West.

[13] Yockey, Proclamation of London, 30.

[14] Yockey, “Prague Treason Trial, What is behind the hanging of eleven Jews in Prague?,” (Published in Yockey: Four Essays, New Jersey: Nordland Press, 1971) 1952. According to “DTK” in the foreword to Yockey: Four Essays, Yockey supporters in the USA circulated the MS as a mimeographed “press release” dated December 20, 1952.

[15] K. R. Bolton, “Francis Parker Yockey: Stalin’s Fascist Advocate,” International Journal of Russian Studies, no. 2, 2010.

[16] K. R. Bolton, “Origins of the Cold War: How Stalin Foiled a New World Order: Relevance for the Present,” Foreign Policy Journal, May 31, 2010.

[17] K. R. Bolton, Cold War Axis: The Influence of Soviet Anti-Zionism on the American Extreme Right (Renaissance Press, 2009).

[18] Yockey, “Prague Treason Trial,” 3.

[19] Martin Lee, The Beast Reawakens, 74. The USSR regarded the Socialist Reich Party as a better option than the Communist Party, and funds were dispensed accordingly.

[20] Ibid., 7–8.

[21] Ibid., 8–9.

[22] Francis Parker Yockey and Revilo P. Oliver, The Enemy of Europe [Yockey], The Enemy of My Enemies [Oliver] (Reedy, West Virginia: Liberty Bell Publications, 1981), 83.

[23] “The End of the Trail,” Common Sense, May 15, 1972. Much insightful political writing was published in Common Sense, and numerous articles have been reprinted as booklets available from this writer.

[24] K. R. Bolton, “Russia and China: an approaching conflict?,” The Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies, vol. 34, no., 2, Summer 2009.

[25] Aldous Huxley, Brave New World (London: Chatto & Windus, 1969).

[26] Aldous Huxley, Brave New World Revisited (Britain: Harper and Row, 1958), 26–27.

[27] Brave New World Revisited, 27.

[28] Brave New World Revisited, ch. 8, “Chemical Persuasion.”

[29] Brave New World Revisited.

[30] Brave New World, ch. 5.

[31] Yockey, “Social Degeneration,” Proclamation of London, 14.

[32] Proclamation of London

[33] Proclamation of London, 14–15.

[34] Hook and Dewey had in 1937 established a so-called commission of inquiry to investigate the Moscow Trials against Trotskyites, for the purpose of white-washing Trotsky under the guise of a neutral judicial inquiry. However, one of the commissioners, Carleton Beals, one of the party that went with Dewey, et al. to Mexico to question Trotsky, resigned in disgust, labeling the inquiry “Trotsky’s pink tea party.” C. Beals, “The Fewer Outsiders the Better: The Pink Tea Party Trials,” Saturday Evening Post, June 12, 1937.

[35] On Steinem and the CIA manipulation of the National Students’ Association see Tom Hayden, Reunion: A Memoir (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1989), 36–39. Gloria Steinem the seminal feminist was an Establishment creation.

[36] Leary was the perfect CIA/Establishment lackey, a mouthpiece for the System-invented psychedelic generation. Journalist Mark Riebling posed the question: “Was the Sixties rebellion a Government Plot?” in Mark Riebling, “Tinker, Tailor, Stoner, Spy: Was Timothy Leary a CIA Agent? Was JFK the ‘Manchurian Candidate’? Was the Sixties Revolution Really a Government Plot?”

[37] Central Intelligence Agency, “Cultural Cold War: Origins of the Congress for Cultural Freedom, 1949–50.

[38] Frances Stonor Saunders, The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters (New York: The New Press, 1999).

[39] The Soros networks support the legalization of narcotics and the promotion of feminism, including liberalized abortion, in states that maintain a vestige of tradition and therefore pose a stumbling block to globalization. The former Soviet bloc is a particular target for Soros subversion. One such Soros front is the Drug Policy Alliance Network, which includes Establishment luminaries such as George Schultz, Paul Volcker, Vaclav Havel, and Soros himself. Drug Policy Alliance Network, About DPA Network.

[40] The National Endowment for Democracy was the brainchild of Trotskyite Tom Kahn. See below.

[41] Yockey, “The American Revolution of 1933,” Imperium, 492–501.

[42] See the wailing about this in Trotsky’s The Revolution Betrayed.

[43] K. R. Bolton, “The Art of ‘Rootless Cosmopolitanism’: America’s Offensive Against Civilisation,” in The Radical Tradition: Philosophy, Metapolitics & Revolution in the Twenty-First Century, ed. Troy Southgate (New Zealand: Primordial Traditions, forthcoming).

[44] The Cultural Cold War, 256.

[45] “Motherwell was a member of the American Committee for Cultural Freedom,” the US branch of the Congress for Cultural Freedom, as was Jackson Pollock (The Cultural Cold War, 276). Both Partisan Review editors Philip Rahv and William Phillips became members of the American committee of the CCF (The Cultural Cold War, 158).

[46] Clement Greenberg,. “Avant-Garde and Kitsch,” Partisan Review 6, no. 5 (1939): 34–49. The essay can be read here.

[47] Bolton, “The Art of ‘Rootless Cosmopolitanism.’”

[48] Clement Greenberg, “American Type Painting,” Partisan Review, Spring 1955.

[49] John O’Brien, “Introduction,” The Collected Essays and Criticism of Clement Greenberg (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993), vol. 3, xxvii.

[50] The Collected Essays and Criticism of Clement Greenberg, vol. 3, xxviii.

[51] The Collected Essays and Criticism of Clement Greenberg, vol. 3, xxviii.

[52] The Cultural Cold War, 263.

[53] The Cultural Cold War, 263.

[54] The Cultural Cold War, 262. Luce’s Life magazine featured Jackson Pollock in its August 1949 issue, making Pollock a household name (The Cultural Cold War, 267).

[55] The Cultural Cold War, 263.

[56] The Cultural Cold War, 267.

[57] Russell Lynes, Good Old Modern Art: An Intimidate Portrait of the Museum of Modern Art (New York: Atheneum, 1973), cited by Saunders, The Cultural Cold War, 267.

[58] Ralph Peters, “Constant Conflict,” Parameters, Summer 1997, 4–14.

[59] K. R. Bolton, “America’s ‘World Revolution:’ Neo-Trotskyite Foundations of US Foreign Policy,” Foreign Policy Journal, May 3, 2010.

[60] K. R. Bolton, “America’s ‘World Revolution.’”

[61] Michael Ledeen, “Creative Destruction: How to Wage a Revolutionary War,” National Review online, September 20, 2001.

[62] Joe Sobran, conservative Catholic columnist, “Why?,” SOBRAN’S — The Real News of the Month, vol. 8, no. 11 (November 2001).

[63] Yockey, “Proclamation of London,” 13.

[64] Couldn’t it be considered that it was with Woodrow Wilson that the “American Revolution” was inaugurated?

[65] As President Bush referred to it in 1983 before a conference of the NED, when stating that just as the Soviet bloc had been “liberated” under Reagan, he would inaugurate the “liberation” of the Muslim world. Fred Barbash, “Bush: Iraq Part of ‘Global Democratic Revolution’: Liberation of Middle East Portrayed as Continuation of Reagan’s Policies,” Washington Post, November 6, 2003.

[66] Natalia Sedova Trotsky, May 9, 1951, Mexico City, letter to the leadership of the Fourth International and the U.S. Socialist Workers Party, Labor Action of June 17, 1951.

[67] Bolton, “America’s ‘World Revolution.’”

[68] Imperium, 586.

[69] Yockey, “The World in Flames: An Estimate of the World Situation,” VI.

[70] Bolton, “Russian and China: An Approaching Conflict.”

[71] Bolton, “An ANZAC-Indo-Russian Alliance? Geopolitical Alternatives for Australia and New Zealand,” India Quarterly, vol. 6, no. 2 (August 2010), 188.

[72] Yockey regarded De Gaulle as a “cretin” yet saw him as embodying the European desire for neutrality, and stated that “an idiot might save Europe,” having “accidentally alighted” upon this “spiritual force.” Yockey, “The World In Flames,” VI.

[73] Olivier Vedrine, “Russia is indeed a European country,” September 2009. Cited by Bolton, India Quarterly, 188–89.

‘Der Feind’ – The Enemy

Editor’s Note: The following is Kerry Bolton’s introduction to the upcoming new edition of Francis Parker Yockey’s The Enemy of Europe, to be published by Centennial Edition.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
The Second World War ended with Europe under the domination of two extra-European powers: the United States and Soviet Russia. Most of the post-war far Right regarded America as the lesser of two evils and sided with Washington in the newly-emerging Cold War. In The Enemy of Europe, Francis Parker Yockey rejected this consensus and argued instead that Europe’s identity and destiny were endangered far more by American than Russian domination.

Yockey wrote The Enemy of Europe in 1948 as the third volume of Imperium. In 1952, he revised the material on Russia in light of the “Prague treason trials” that he analyzed in his essay of that year, “What is Behind the Hanging of the Eleven Jews in Prague?”[1] Yockey argued that the Prague trials, which included eleven Jews among fourteen defendants, marked a definitive turn of the Soviet bloc against Jewish interests.[2]

Yockey argued that the United States was more dominated by Jews and more implacably hostile to Europe than the USSR. Thus, it was pointless for Europeans to hope that the Culture-distorting regime in Washington would be overthrown. A “nationalist revolution” could not even be envisaged in the US, according to Yockey. From at least 1951, Yockey had sought to convince the “European elite” that America alone was the enemy of Europe. He stated, “Let us not attack phantoms, let us attack the real enemy of Europe: America.”[3]

Yockey’s views were much misunderstood by the Right, who could only see Russia as the existential enemy. Even Sir Oswald Mosley failed to grasp the new world situation and regarded the US as the lesser evil that was required to protect Western Europe from the ultimate horror of a Soviet invasion. Conversely, Otto Strasser adopted a view similar to Yockey’s, but it is unknown whether he had been influenced by Yockey’s thinking. “If only Europe is left alone,” wrote Strasser, “Europe can and will take care of any threat from Russia — or from anywhere else.”[4]

Yockey published The Enemy of Europe in Germany in 1953. He simultaneously published a German translation, Der Feind Europas, in two hundred copies, which he planned to distribute to the leaders of the Socialist Reich Party (SRP) and other leading German nationalists.

The Socialist Reich Party (SRP) was founded in 1949. The party immediately acquired two members in the Bundestag when they defected from other parties. Major General Otto Remer, the party’s deputy leader, was the most energetic campaigner. He was soon banned from Schleswig-Holstein and North Rhine-Westphalia, where the SRP was most popular. The US occupation authorities noted the SRP opposition to the Western alliance and their advocacy of a united Germany within a united Europe. In 1950, SRP members were banned from state service, the US State Department fearing that the party could democratically assume power. SRP meetings were violently broken up by police, and a pro-SRP newspaper, Reichszeitung, was banned.

Remer stepped up his denunciation of the US occupation and the Western alliance while refraining from condemning the USSR and the Soviet-occupied German Democratic Republic (DDR). The US State Department noted this, commenting, “The party is suspected of willingness to effect a large compromise with Russia in order to unify Germany.”[5]

When the US decided on a policy of integrating Germany into the Western defense system, Remer launched a campaign with the slogan Ohne mich! (“Count me out!”), which drew a ready response from war veterans resentful of their post-war predicament in the Western zone. It attracted popular support across all sections of German society, much to the consternation of the US government and the American news media, the latter of which ran sensationalist articles on a “Nazi-Communist alliance.”[6]

Remer went further than a “neutralist” position and stated that in the event of war, Germans should not cover an American retreat if the Russians drove them back. He stated that he would “show the Russians the way to the Rhine,” and that SRP members would “post themselves as traffic policemen, spreading their arms so that the Russians can find their way through Germany as quickly as possible.”[7] On October 23, 1952, the SRP was banned after winning sixteen seats in the state parliament of Lower Saxony and eight seats in Bremen.

In the US, where H. Keith Thompson, with Yockey’s assistance,[8] was campaigning for Remer and the SRP’s legal rights, the Federal Bureau of Investigation was interested in rumors of Frederick Weiss’ links to Soviet agents and Rightists in Germany. Weiss stated to the FBI that Yockey had left the US for Germany in January 1953. He stated that he believed Yockey had gone to Germany to have The Enemy of Europe translated into German.[9] The German secret service, K-16, in turn seized and destroyed all copies of The Enemy of Europe. No copies of the English original survived, and only a few copies of the German edition were distributed. The present English edition is a reverse translation from the German edition.

Yockey saw the Asian horde from the eastern steppes as having occupied half of Germany with American contrivance, believing that Russia’s world-mission was destructive. Indeed, his outlook on Russia in Imperium reflected an atavistic anti-Slavism, with the revival of the old calls for Western Lebensraum in the East. On the other hand, the United States, as the carrier of Culture-pathology, rotted the Culture-organism spiritually, morally, and culturally. Russian hegemony was only surface deep and could be overthrown or subverted. American hegemony, however, was a cancer and had to be cut out. Yockey’s outlook on Russia was pragmatic and in keeping with the German elite’s tradition of Realpolitik from the preceding centuries. As a Spenglerian, Yockey was well acquainted with Oswald Spengler’s assessment of Russia when Spengler foresaw even in 1922 — the year of the Treaty of Rapallo — that Russia would soon overthrow the Marxian importation and return to its own soul, at which time German business, military, and political interests would be able to reach an alliance with Russia against Versailles and the Entente powers.[10]
 

American-Jewish Bolshevism versus Russian Bolshevism

Like Spengler, Yockey saw the Russian as a “barbarian,” but not in a derogatory sense. It refers to a “young” race that maintains the vigor of adolescence. “The barbarian is rough and tough… not legalistic or intellectualised. He is the opposite of decadent. He is ruthless and does not shrink back from destroying what others may prize highly,” Yockey wrote in Der Feind. Bolshevism, imported from the West largely by Jews, had been modified during its time in the Russian steppes, Yockey states. The Americans, on the other hand, had become culturally primitive in their detachment from Europe and “over-civilized” because of their preoccupation with “peace, comfort, and security.” The seeming paradox of being both culturally primitive and over-civilized shows the influence of German historicism on Yockey’s thinking, in the tradition of Spengler and others, which is little understood in the world of Anglophone academia, which sees history as akin to a tape-worm slithering along a path called “progress.” In German historicism, there is a dichotomy between Kultur and Zivilization, reflecting the inner (spiritual and moral) and outer (materialistic and technical) qualities of a Volk, respectively.

American and Russian Bolshevik ideologies nevertheless possessed a common obsession with technics and production. Spengler had written a great deal on the similar spirit of Communism and capitalism in The Decline of The West, Prussian Socialism, The Hour of Decision, and elsewhere. Heidegger alluded to it in 1935: “Russia and America, seen metaphysically, are both the same: the same wretched frenzy of unchained technology and the boundless organization of the average man.”[11] Aldous Huxley understood it as well, with his Brave New World depicting a synthesis of capitalism, Freudianism, and Communism.

However, for Europe, Yockey wrote in Der Feind, “the following distinction is important: American-Jewish Bolshevism is the instinctive destruction of the West through primitive, anti-cultural ideas… through the imposition of Culture-distortion and Culture-retardation. Russian Bolshevism seeks to attain the destruction of the West in the spirit of pan-Slavic religiosity, i.e., the Russification of all humanity.” What we are seeing are two antithetical messianic outlooks, and these moreover their historical conclusions have yet to be realized.

Yockey states in Der Feind: “Thus American-Jewish Bolshevism poses a real spiritual threat to Europe. In its every aspect, American-Jewish Bolshevism strikes a weak spot in the European organism.” The “Michel-stratum” — that is, the inner enemy — comprises much of the leadership stratum of post-war Europe, representing “the inner-America,” that is motivated by “the purely animal American ideal” of comfort, security, and conformity.” If this serenity is upset, bayonets can reimpose it. What Yockey wrote of in 1952 is now boasted of as the lethality of “American culture” by the spokesmen of the “American millennium… Russian Bolshevism is therefore less dangerous to Europe than American-Jewish Bolshevism.” Unless one is familiar with the metaphysical outlook of this current, it makes no sense: “American Bolshevism”? We are considering a spirit, not a party political manifesto. Bolshevism is defined as a means of destruction; a pathogen of culture and soul.

There is in Europe an “inner-America” that appeals to the decadent elements of the West, but there is no “inner-Russia.” The Communist parties had already stopped serving any Russian interests, and it was “political stupidity” if Moscow kept using Marxism as a means of exporting its influence, as it had lost its value. When Russia turned against Jewry after the Second World War, the fate of every Communist party in the West was sealed, Yockey writes. Stalin had already eliminated the Comintern in 1943 as a nest of traitors. The leadership of the German Communist Party likewise died collectively in Russia, not in Hitler’s Germany. The Critical Theorists found refuge from Hitler not in the USSR, but in the US, courtesy of the State Department and the Rockefeller Foundation, from which they proceeded to take over academia in the US. These Jewish-Marxist destroyers were universally rejected by the USSR, and the Soviet press condemned Herbert Marcuse at a time when he was being heralded as a great intellectual in the US, where he inspired New Left riots from Chicago to Prague (while the conservative Right cried “Soviet plot”).

The Prague treason trials were a definitive statement to the world concerning the Soviets and Jewry, but the process had been underway since the Trotskyites started being purged in 1928. Additionally, the significance of the USSR’s rejection of America’s post-war plans for the United Nations Organization and the so-called “internationalization” of atomic energy under the “Baruch Plan” was also not lost on Yockey, but was — and continues to be — on those mostly Anglophone Rightists who could not transcend their ideological quagmire. As a result, Yockey was attacked with much vitriol by Anglo-Nazis such as Arnold Leese.

The US, for its part, recruited Mensheviks, Trotskyites, and liberals to assault European culture with jazz and Abstract Expressionism in what is now referred to as the “Cultural Cold War.” It was claimed that these epitomized the benefits of American democracy, while the USSR condemned them as “rootless cosmopolitanism,” being without folk roots, and as “internationalist.” That is how Yockey could refer to “American Bolshevism” and consider it as more dangerous to the Western culture-organism than “Russian Bolshevism.” Today, exponents of the “American millennium” glory in America’s world “revolutionary mission” to destroy all vestiges of tradition through the irresistible lure of decadence.

The fundamentally Bolshevist character of the US in spirit was affirmed when Sedova Trotsky, after resigning from the Fourth International, announced her allegiance to the US during the Cold War, and stated that her late husband would have done the same. Other Mensheviks such as the esteemed Dr. Sidney Hook flocked to the American side against the USSR and redefined American conservativism, to the extent that when Dr. Christopher Lasch repudiated the Left in the early 1970s and sought out a genuine “conservatism” in the US, he could not find it. Yockey had already seen through the farce and racket of “American conservativism” in the 1950s.

Yockey’s view of the impact of a Russian-occupied Europe, by which he meant the non-Slavic landswas that it would be analogous to the “barbarian” invasions of other civilizations, such as the Northern invasion of Egypt, the Kassite conquest of Babylonia, the Aryan conquest of the Indus, and the Germanic invasions of Rome. Conquest did not destroy these cultures; rather, the barbarians were absorbed into the Culture-organism or they were expelled. Further, Yockey stressed that sometimes the barbarian becomes the custodian of the values of the host culture, such as when the defeated hosts have become too etiolated to maintain their own traditions. It also happened over millennia in China through “dynastic cycles.”[12] The barbarian brings uncontaminated vigor and the prospect of cultural renewal rather than destruction, distortion, retardation, or parasitism.

The other possibility for a Late Civilization threatened by a barbarian invasion is that the outer enemy impels it to unite around its traditional ethos, and in this way it is also reinvigorated. Yockey held out the possibility of either option vis-à-vis Russia, while the US represented not so much a military occupation as a flooding of the Culture-organism with disease. Yockey referred to the “ethical syphilis of Hollywood,” for example.
 

Europe-Russia symbiosis

Yockey contended that Russia only occupied one-tenth of (non-Slavic) Europe after the Second World War, and that this was only made possible due to the contrivance of the “Washington regime,” motivated by a pathological hatred of Europe. This was still a time when the New York-Washington regime had dreams of harnessing the USSR to a one-world state via the UN and the Baruch Plan.

In the event of a Russian occupation of Europe, Yockey saw two possibilities: first, endless uprisings until Russia grew tired and left; or second, a relatively lenient regime that could be infiltrated, causing the “Europeanization” of Russia within a few decades to a more meaningful extent than the Petrinism of prior centuries. This would “eventually result in the rise of a new Symbiosis: Europe-Russia. Its final form would be that of a European Imperium.”

Here we read the most unequivocal statement of what Yockey envisioned for Russia, which differed from his Slavophobic sentiments: the prospect of a “Europe-Russia Symbiosis” that would be the foundation for unity from the Atlantic to the Urals, through the force of historical necessity rather than through Western Lebensraum.

Yockey further stated that in the event of a Russian occupation of Europe, the first victims would be the local Communist parties, as the types attracted to these could not be trusted. Stalin had already recognized this through his abolition of the Comintern and the elimination of those foreign Communists who were naïve enough to seek refuge in the USSR. They were Marxist theorists, whereas Russia’s true religion was not Marxism, but Russia. It has since been pointed out that Russian Bolshevism owed more to Alexander Herzen than to Marx, and one might also point to Marx’s own anti-Russian attitude, which influenced the development of Russian Bolshevism away from what was seen as a rival German-Jewish current in socialism. Bolshevism was Russian messianism under another guise.[13]

In Yockey’s view, rather than destroying Europe, Russian occupation would eliminate the “inner enemy,” “the Michel-stratum,” and “thus liberate all creative forces within Europe from the tyranny of the Past.” Petty-statism would go with the traitors, who were being kept in power by American bayonets: “The barbarian, whether he wished it or not, would complete the spiritual unification of Europe by removing the only inner-European obstacle to that unity. From the Spiritual to the Political is but one step.” Should Russia try to incorporate Europe into its empire, it could only do so by according Europe “significant concessions,” including autonomy as a unit. Should brute force be used, that would provoke a united reaction analogous to the barbarian uprisings against Roman occupation.
 

Yockey’s accordance with German geopolitical thinking

Yockey was writing for a political elite, to inspire them to keep struggling at a time when Europe was in ruins and many of the political, military, and cultural leaders who survived were dispossessed and persecuted. The immediate message was: Do not fight for the enemy of Europe, the American-Jewish Symbiosis, even if this means collaboration with a Russian occupation. This was a message that many elements of the German Right heeded, and the reason for the interest the American authorities had in Yockey. It was also an opinion widely held in Germany.

Yockey purveyed Der Feind to Germans at precisely the time that there was highly paranoid thinking in American governing circles in regard to the prospect for rapprochement between Germany and Russia. Yockey’s outlook in Der Feind was in keeping with Germany’s tradition of Realpolitik and its alliances with Russia — namely, between Peter the Great and Frederick the Great, when Russia had switched to the Prussian side in 1762; of Bismarck’s Rückversicherungspolitik (“Reinsurance Policy”);[14] the Treaty of Rapallo; and the Hitler-Stalin Pact, which had been greeted with genuine enthusiasm in German military and diplomatic circles.

After Napoleon’s defeat in 1812, General Johann David Ludwig von Yorck, commander of the Prussian Corps of the Napoleonic Army, negotiated a separate peace with the Russians in defiance of the Prussian King and the Treaty of Paris, which had committed Prussia to supporting France against Russia. This was the Neutrality Pact of Tauroggen, which made a lasting impression on Germany’s officer corps. It so happened that one of Yockey’s numerous aliases while traveling the world, avoiding military intelligence and the FBI, was (Franz) Ludwig Yorck.

Even in mainstream circles in Germany at that time there was a desire for a united Europe, independent of the US, that would have a collaborative attitude towards the USSR, from which it was hoped there would be major concessions. One of the primary German newspapers stated:

In order to jump out from her present isolation, she [the USSR] can, exactly as the Rapallo Treaty did thirty years ago, place Germany as a defensive buffer between the East and the West. From the politico-economic point of view, she could repeat the old game for world power by concluding long-term agreements with German industry and by renewing her trade with Germany. Thus, Russia might re-open the door to the world market.[15]

If we Germans would come to feel that the other powers, openly or tacitly, try to hinder German equality and re-unification, the (Western) treaties would quickly turn out to have been built on quicksand… The fact that we are tied up with the NATO pact does not make it impossible for Europe, as soon as it is strong enough and the international situation has changed, to one day become independent from every side.[16]

For its part, the newspaper Christ und Welt, aligned with Chancellor Adenauer’s Christian Democratic Union, stated:

Continental Europe would break from the Atlantic Pact if the Soviets agree to withdraw their forces behind the Pripet Marshes and release not only the Eastern Zone of Germany but the whole of Eastern Europe into the European Union. A Western Europe, standing on its own feet and possessing its own powerful forces, can begin with developing its colonial empire in Africa. Such a Europe, whatever its ties might be with America, could afford to carry out such an independent policy because it will have the strength of a third power.[17]

Father E. J. Reichenberger[18] wrote in 1952 that the reunification of Germany “cannot be achieved without the consent of the Russians.” Moscow’s primary aim was

not the spread of Communism in Germany, but to make Germany an Ally. We cannot see the reason why Germany should not line up politically with Russia, especially after the Western democracies found nothing objectionable against Russia as an Ally. For Germany, the political question is therefore: From which side has Germanyto expect the better bargain in the long run?

He reminded German-American readers that the US and the Allies had “robbed German foreign assets, stole German patents, and eliminated German competition on the world market.” His worldview was moreover similar to what Yockey and other European liberationists were stating: that Communism and Western democracy are variations of the same materialism which would be transcended by the German Weltanschauung.[19]

The demand for neutrality in any conflict with Russia was the norm among Germans of all classes at a time when the US was trying to reinstall the martial spirit in Germans, should they be needed as cannon fodder. Just after the outbreak of war in Korea, the New York Herald Tribune reported from Germany:

There is a widespread impression abroad that the German people would jump at a chance to get into uniform again and try a few more Blitzkriege. Every political and labor leader with whom this correspondent spoke in the principal cities of West Germany said that those who hold that impression are sadly mistaken.[20]

The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung likewise published an article urging a policy close to what Yockey and his comrades were advocating:

We do not need to call the attention of the experienced men in the Kremlin to the fact that a strong and unified Western Europe can defend its independence against every side. Why should the Kremlin not be interested in such independence?… If the world, which is today split into two parts, could be reshuffled into a number of independent power groups, it may prevent this horrible conflagration for mankind. A flexible and prudent Russian policy could, for instance, grant German reunification in exchange for the independence of Europe, which could be defended against every side. In such a case, the reunification of Germany would become a guarantee for peace. The treaties which are presently signed will not prove to be an obstacle toward reunification if the Russians remain interested in such a solution.[21]

It is notable that in the calls for German unification throughout various quarters, the vision is one of Germany within a united Europe. The US was calling — indeed demanding — European unification, but on the basis of opposition to the USSR. But even liberal Germans saw the prospects for a united Germany within a united Europe that could assure peace with a neutral, and even collaborative, approach to the USSR.
 

Russia’s policy of conciliation

Why did the Germans have such a hopeful attitude towards the possibilities of a Russo-German accord? On March 10, 1952, Soviet Deputy Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko had delivered the so-called “Soviet note” from Stalin to German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer and the Western occupying powers. James Cartnal describes its background:

On March 10, 1952, the Soviet deputy foreign minister, Andrei Gromyko, sent to the delegates of the three Western occupying powers of Germany diplomatic correspondence which included a draft peace treaty for Germany. The provisions outlined in this Soviet diplomatic note were sweeping. According to the Soviet note, Germany would be reunified, thus ending its aberrant division, and given an opportunity to establish itself as an independent, democratic, peace-loving state. In addition, all democratic parties and organizations in Germany would have free activity, including the right to assembly, free speech, and publication. The Soviet note also provided civil and political rights for all German citizens; this included all former members of the German Wehrmacht, and all former Nazis, excluding those serving court sentences for crimes against humanity. The Soviet draft peace treaty called for the withdrawal of all armed forces of the occupying powers, mandated the liquidation of all foreign bases of operation within Germany, and prevented reunited Germany from joining any kind of coalition or military alliance directed against any power which took part with its armed forces in the Second World War against Germany. Germany’s territories were defined, according to the Soviet diplomatic note, by the borders provided by the provisions of the Potsdam conference. Furthermore, the Soviet draft peace treaty allowed Germany to develop its own national armed forces (land, sea, and air) necessary to provide for the defense of the country and permitted the formation of a German arms industry, limited by the provisions provided in the final German peace treaty.

The Soviets hoped to convene a four power conference designed to make peace with a united German state. The four power conference envisioned by the Kremlin never took place. Instead, the Russian initiative led to an exchange of diplomatic correspondence between the Soviet Union and the three Western occupying powers that continued throughout the summer of 1952. This “battle of the notes,” as British Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden termed it, revealed that the Soviets and the West held widely differing views regarding the necessity of free, all-German elections preceding any discussion relating to the reunification of Germany.

The “battle of the notes” left unanswered important issues of the Soviet note of March 1952; the Soviets proposed no specific limits for German remilitarization and offered no definition as to what constituted a democratic, peace-loving, and independent state. At the end of the summer of 1952, Soviet attempts to resolve the German question would not achieve success; Germany would remain divided and each section would become more firmly anchored in its respective bloc over the next three and a half decades.[22]

Debates ensued as to whether Stalin could be trusted. Without a “Soviet threat,” there was no foundation on which to justify the subjugation of Europe by the Washington-New York regime other than to again change policy and return to the legend of the “Prussian threat.” Stalin was willing to meet most of Adenauer’s demands, yet Adenauer placed subordination to the US before a free and united Germany and Europe. Regarding the reaction to the “Soviet note,” Gromyko recalled that

the reaction of the Western powers was unenthusiastic. In Bonn, however, common sense deserted Adenauer and his circle altogether, the Soviet proposals became an object of propaganda, and the reunification of Germany was lost in the scrimmage.

No other government in the post-war period made such a gross political miscalculation. Without doubt Adenauer lost a historic opportunity. The Federal Republic, moreover, became a part of the anti-Soviet Western military bloc — at a time when the USSR and Germany were still technically in a state of war. This was ended only on 25 January 1955 by an order of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR.

Adenauer continued his policy of lost opportunities. In 1957 he rejected an East German proposal which put forward the idea of a German confederation.[23]

Could Stalin have really been trusted with anything of the kind? Probably yes.

The USSR, after the initial bloodletting and brutalization of the occupation, halted its barbaric ravishing of Europe, while the Morgenthau Plan was being enacted de facto, given that the US was still hoping that there was a chance of incorporating the USSR into a new post-war order as a junior partner.

A significant example of the difference in spirit between the USSR and the US towards Europe is the former’s intervention in favor of the Norwegian novelist Knut Hamsun, who was always popular in the Soviet Union. Hamsun supported Hitler and collaborationist Prime Minister Vidkun Quisling during the war. One writer has recounted:

At the end of 1945, the Soviet Minister for foreign affairs, Molotov, informed his Norwegian colleague Trygve Lie, that it ‘would be regrettable to see Norway condemning this great writer to the gallows.’ Molotov had taken this step with the agreement of Stalin. It was after this intervention that the Norwegian government abandoned plans to try Hamsun and contented itself with levying a large fine that almost bankrupted him. The question remains open: would Norway have condemned the old man Hamsun to capital punishment? The Norwegian collaborators were all condemned to heavy punishments. But the Soviet Union could exert a strong and dreaded influence in Scandinavia in the immediate post-war period.[24]

Particularly symbolic was the fact that the USSR offered Rudolf Hess his release if he would endorse the DDR. In 1952, the year of the “Soviet note,” Lothar Bolz, the DDR’s Deputy Minister-President , Karl Hamann, as well as Minister of Trade and Supplies Otto Grotewohl, met with Hess to discuss whether he would be willing to play a leading role in a reunified and neutral Germany. German historian Werner Maser states that Otto Grotewohl told him about the meeting on the understanding that it would not be mentioned until after Grotewohl’s death.[25] Hess was taken from Spandau to meet the DDR leaders when the USSR assumed its monthly jurisdiction over the Spandau prison fortress. Maser records that Stalin wished “to temper justice with mercy in the German matter and to grant Hess a prominent position within the framework of reconstruction and the efforts towards the reunification of Germany.”[26] If Hess would state that the DDR’s policy was the same as the “socialism” to which he had always adhered, he would be immediately released from Spandau and would play a part in the leadership of a reunited Germany. Hess rejected the offer, although he “welcomed… the efforts of the DDR and the Soviet Union to preserve German patriotism, and had listened attentively to what his interlocutors had to say on the programs of the political parties referred to…” He nevertheless regarded the acceptance of such an offer as a betrayal of Hitler’s memory. Grotewohl found it hard to understand why Hess rejected the offer to help rebuild Germany as a free man.[27]

The reference to Hess listening “attentively to what his interlocutors had to say on the programs of the political parties referred to” concerns the creation of a nationalist party that would have been part of the DDR’s government.

At a meeting between Stalin and the leaders of the Socialist Unity Party (Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands, or SED) in the Soviet zone that was held on January 31, 1947, Stalin asked how many Germans across all the occupation zones were “fascist elements,” and about “what influence did they retain in the Western zones.” Grotewohl replied that it was a difficult question to answer, but that he could give Stalin lists of former National Socialist party members “in leadership positions in the Western zones.” Stalin had not asked this question with the view of purging Germany of “fascists,” but with the possibility of reforming former National Socialist Party members into a party that would promote nationalism and socialism within the context of a Soviet Germany. He was also interested in the possible voting patterns of “fascist elements” should there be a plebiscite on German unification. Grotewohl’s view was that they were “all reactionaries.” Stalin’s view was different. Would it be possible to organize the “fascists” in the Soviet zone under a different name? He pointed out to the SED leaders that their policy of “exterminating fascists” was no different from that of the Americans, stating: “Maybe I should add this course [of organizing a nationalist party] so as not to push all of the former Nazis into the enemy camp?”[28]

Grotewohl dogmatically objected that if the “fascists” were reorganized into their own party, such a move would be “incomprehensible to the working masses” in the Western zones. Stalin replied that showing the “Nazis” in the Western zones that their comrades under the Soviets were not being purged would provide a positive impression that “not all of them will be destroyed,” stating that he wanted to recruit “patriotic elements” for a “fascist party,” especially among “secondary figures of the former Nazi Party.” There would be nothing reactionary about establishing such a party, as many “Nazis” had “come from out of the people.”[29]

Ulbricht thought Stalin’s idea plausible by focusing on the socialist aspect of National Socialism, especially among idealistic youth. Stalin explained that he did not aim to integrate “fascist’ elements into the SED, but to encourage them to form their own party in alliance with the SED. Former “Nazis” were voting for the conservative parties in the Soviet-occupied zone, fearful that the establishment of a Soviet state would mean their liquidation. Stalin wanted to demonstrate that their situation under a Soviet Germany would be different. He also did not share the view of German Communist leaders that the “fascist elements” were all bourgeois. He stated that “there should be relief for those who had not sold out” to the Western occupation, and that “we must not forget that the elements of Nazism are alive not only in the bourgeois layers, but also among the working class and the petty bourgeoisie.” The new party, which would be part of an SED-led “national front” coalition, would be called the “National Democrats.”[30] To other objections, Stalin responded that the “fascist elements” were no longer concerned with acquiring “living space” in the East.

In February 1948, the Soviet Military Administration (Sowjetische Militäradministration in Deutschland, or SMAD) announced the end of denazification. In March 1948, the prosecution of Germans for alleged “war crimes” was formally ended. The same month, the Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands (NDPD) was formed. The DDR was announced in 1949 and established through elections in the Soviet-occupied zone after the failure of the USSR and the Western occupiers to agree on terms for elections on the reunification of Germany.

With the NDPD’s creation, Stalin stated that the party would “erase the line between non-Nazis and former Nazis.” On March 22, a newspaper was launched to pave the way, the National-Zeitung, which announced that “while in other areas there remains the atmosphere of the denazification of Germany, in the eastern part the people’s eyes light up again. Simple party comrades no longer have to be timid and fearfully look around as if they were pariahs.” The party was founded three days later under the chairmanship of Lothar Bolz, who held the post until 1972. Bolz had been a member of the pre-war German Communist Party and was one of the few German Communist leaders to have survived Stalin’s hazardous hospitality for Communist refugees.[31] During much of that time Bolz served in the government of the DDR, including as Foreign Minister (1968-1978). The Vice Chairman of the NDPD was Heinrich Hohmann, who had joined the National Socialist party in 1933, and was also a co-founder of the League of German Officers, which formed the NDPD’s initial nucleus. The NDPD’s program was stridently nationalistic, as much so as the Socialist Reich Party, which was being outlawed in the Federal Republic:

America violated the Treaty of Potsdam and plunged us Germans with malice into the biggest national distress of our history… But the American war may and shall not take place! Germany must live! That’s why we National Democrats demand: the Americans to America. Germany for the Germans! The Federal Republic of Germany is a child of national treason… That’s why we National Democrats demand: German unity over the head of the government of national treason in Bonn, as a basis for peace, independence, and prosperity for our entire German fatherland.[32]

The party reached a peak of 230,000 members in 1953, and during the 1980s still had a significant membership of 110,000. In 1948 the party sent 52 members to the DDR’s parliament, the Volkskammer. The party drew on ex-NSDAP members and army veterans to support its campaigns. One such appeal from the party in 1952 included the names of 119 officers from the Wehrmacht, SS, the Hitler Youth, the League of German Maidens (BDM), and the German Labor Front.[33]

The NDPD’s origins go back still further to the National Committee for a Free Germany that was formed by German officers captured by the Soviets during the Second World War. Returning to the Soviet Zone after the war, these officers formed the NDPD’s leadership and held high positions in the DDR for many years. For example, NDPD co-founder Colonel Wilhelm Adam was a veteran of both world wars. His nationalist politics went back to membership in the Young German Order in 1920 and the NSDAP in 1923, and he had participated in Hitler’s Munich Putsch. He was also a member of the conservative German People’s Party (DVP) during 1926-1929. In 1933, he joined the Stahlhelm and the Sturmabteilung. Captured in 1943 at Stalingrad, Adam joined the National Committee for a Free Germany, and when he returned to the Soviet Zone in 1948, he became an adviser to Saxony’s state government. In 1952, he became a Colonel in the Kasernierte Volkspolizei (KVP), which later became the DDR People’s Army. He was honored in 1968 with the Banner of Labor and with the title of Major General in 1977. There were many others of a similar background who were honored by the DDR.
 

Conclusion

This is the milieu in which Yockey travelled, and why the American authorities were so interested in his activities. Along with his German mentor in the US, Frederick Weiss, who published “estimates” of the world situation in the Spenglerian mode, the line he and Yockey adopted was in accord with a wide circle of those seeking German and European liberation and unity: the recognition of the USA as der Feind, and reaching an understanding with Russia to secure concessions. This outlook had been purveyed as far back as 1948 by Der Weg in Argentina, representing what H. Keith Thompson said to this writer was the “higher authority,” sensationally called Die Spinne and Odessa by the world news media. But beyond that, the idea had taken root among Germans high and low. Yockey’s Der Feind thus gave historical-philosophical depth to popular feelings.

Otto Remer never repudiated his contention that Germany and Europe had to turn to Russia. After continual legal harassment and a long exile in Spain, Remer returned to West Germany. In 1983 he established the German Freedom Movement (Die deutschen Freiheitsbewegung, or DDF), dedicated to Russo-German accord. Its manifesto, The Bismarck-German Manifesto, is subheaded “German-Russian Alliance Rapallo 1983,” which continued the neutralist line from Remer’s SRP days three decades earlier. The manifesto, echoing Yockey’s ideas on the “Culture-distorting regime” of Washington and New York, states that “[t]he American way of life is for us synonymous with the destruction of European culture,” and that Germany “would not be used as the tip of the NATO spear… We will not participate in a NATO war against Russia.”

As with Yockey’s other writings, Der Feind has not dated in its method of analysis. The world situation has worsened with the collapse of the Soviet Empire. The spartan lifestyle that had been imposed in the Soviet Empire means that today, the peoples of that region are the only white remnant that has been uncontaminated by “the ethical syphilis of Hollywood,” and hence the frenetic manner by which “the enemy of Europe” attempts to contaminate these regions — some of whose states, such as Hungary, consciously resist it. “The Enemy of Europe” is now the world-enemy (and Yockey envisaged that in his final essay, “The World in Flames”[34]) whose primary weapon, as American strategist Ralph Peters gloated, remains what Yockey called “Culture-distortion” backed by military force. While certain terms have changed and the political front-men are different, the great political issues remain: the existential conflict between the US and Russia; the role of Israel; the place of Europe and the West in that conflict; and the relationship between the West and the US, which is heralded as the “leader of the West” while being nothing but the leader of Culture-distortion, parasitism, and retardation.

_____________

Notes

[1] Originally published anonymously in the National Renaissance Bulletin. The latter was the newsletter of the National Renaissance Party led by James H. Madole, who was at the time closely associated with Yockey’s US-based mentor, the German immigrant Frederick Weiss, a veteran of the First World War.

[2] During the trial, the defendants were implicated as part of a Jewish cabal that included US Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter; Moshe Pijade, described as “the Titoist Jewish ideologue” in Yugoslavia; and David BenGurion and Moshe Sharett in Israel. They were said to be part of a plot against Czechoslovakia planned in Washington in 1947 by President Harry S. Truman, Secretary of State Dean Acheson, and former Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau, Jr. Communist Party secretary Rudolf Slansky was described in the indictment as “by his very nature a Zionist.” Paul Lendvai, Anti-Semitism in Eastern Europe (London: Macdonald & Co., 1972), 243-245.

[3] Yockey, “The Death of England,” Part 2, Frontfighter, No. 13, June 1951, 3.

[4] Otto Strasser, “The Role of Europe,” in Mosley: Policy & Debate (Euphorion Books, 1954).

[5] Martin Lee, The Beast Reawakens (London: Little, Brown & Company, 1997), 58.

[6] Edmond Taylor, “Germany: Where Fascism & Communism Meet,” The Reporter, New York, April 13, 1954.

[7] US State Department report, June 22, 1951; cited by Lee, ibid., 65.

[8] Thompson registered as an American agent for the SRP in 1952. When the party was banned, Thompson, with Yockey’s assistance , formed the Committee for International Justice and the Committee for the Freedom of Major General Remer, to assist Remer and others being prosecuted in Germany, and also helped the families of war veterans.

[9] Edward A. Brandt, FBI file no. 105-23413-26, October 22, 1954.

[10] Oswald Spengler, “The Two Faces of Russia & Germany’s Eastern Problems” (1922) in Spengler: Prussian Socialism & Other Essays (London: Black House Publishing 2018).

[11] Quoted in Javier Cardoza-Kon, Heidegger’s Politics of Enframing: Technology and Responsibility (New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2020), 22.

[12] Bolton, The Decline & Fall of Civilisations (London: Black House Publishing, 2017), 260-269. Amoury de Riencourt, The Soul of China (Honeyglen Publishing, 1989).

[13] See: Mikhail Agursky, The Third Rome: National Bolshevism in the USSR (London: Westview Press, 1987).

[14] It stated that each would remain neutral if one were attacked by another power.

[15] “What Can Russia Win if She Plays Her Trump Card?,” Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, March 15, 1952.

[16] Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, June 5, 1952.

[17] Christ und Welt, December 27, 1951.

[18] Father E. J. Reichenberger was the leader of the Catholics in Czechoslovakia prior the Second World War, and an opponent of National Socialism and Germany’s annexation of the Sudetenland. After the war, he became the leader of Sudeten German emigres, the primary spokesman of German deportees from Eastern Europe, and a fierce critic of Allied policies against Germany, including the concept of “collective guilt.” Despite his anti-Nazi credentials, his being honored by the Vatican as a member of the Pontifical Secret Chamber, and receiving numerous awards such as the Badge of Honour from Austria, he was smeared for his defense of Germany after the war.

[19] E. J. Reichenberger, Nord-America, April 17, 1952.

[20] Joseph Newman, New York Herald Tribune
, August 27, 1950.

[21] Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, May 30, 1952.

[22] James Cartnal, “Dispelling a Myth: The Soviet Note of March 1952.”

[23] Andrei Gromyko, Memories (London: Hutchison, 1989), 196.

[24] Anonymous, “Knut Hamsun: Saved by Stalin?,” Counter-Currents, July 6, 2010.

[25] The event is described by Wolf Rüdiger Hess in My Father Rudolf Hess (London: W. H. Allen, 1986). Note 6 in the chapter “Special Treatment” states that Maser left a typewritten note on his meeting with Grotewohl when Maser was working at the Institute for Research into Imperialism, East Berlin Humboldt University, which was directed by the pre-war “National Bolshevik” Ernst Niekisch, who was present at the meeting between Maser and Grotewohl.

[26] Wolf Rüdiger Hess, ibid., 251.

[27] Ibid., 252-253.

[28] Historical and Documentary Department, Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The USSR and the German Question: 1941-1949 (Documents from the Archives of the Foreign Policy of the Russian Federation, M. “International Relations,” 2003), 244-253.

[29] Ibid.

[30] Ibid.

[31] Stalin liquidated the entirety of the Central Committee of the German Communist Party that had fled to the USSR seeking refuge from Hitler.

[32] NDPD Program, June 1951.

[33] NDPD Appeal for German Unity, Fourth Party Congress, 1952.

[34] Reprinted in Kerry Bolton & John Morgan (eds.), The World in Flames: The Shorter Writings of Francis Parker Yockey (Centennial Edition Publishing, 2020).

Great power politics

Although on racial and important historical events (Hellstorm Holocaust) professor John Mearsheimer is a normie, it is worth listening to what he has to say about great power politics (here and here).

This is where I see that the criticism of American white nationalism by the retired Canadian Sebastian Ronin is spot on. Even the foremost mind of the movement, William Pierce (1933-2002), suffered in some ways from patriotardism.

For example, in Who We Are Pierce omitted the history of his native country, and in his weekly podcasts he blamed the white shark (Jewry) without wanting to see the megalodon (the US): both trying to eat alive the white race. Unlike the patriotards, another American, Robert Morgan, who comments in the comments section of The Unz Review, exposes how Christian ethics was always behind the emancipation of blacks in America. I would add that Christian ethics was also behind the empowerment of Jews in the US: just look at the pro-Israeli philo-Semitism of the evangelicals.

And when it comes to great power politics in the international arena, things are much worse! What John Mearsheimer tells us is that the United States set out to become a regional hegemon, and Imperial Germany and Nazi Germany had to be destroyed in the process—the two World Wars…!

Listen to what he says linked above. Not to understand this is to understand nothing. The gap in Pierce’s book, his history of the white race, must be filled with this chapter by Mearsheimer. But except for Francis Parker Yockey and more recently Michael O’Meara, who used to publish on Greg Johnson’s Counter-Currents, no one in racialist forums has dared to weigh in on the matter.

In a nutshell, if you want to save the DNA of white North Americans, America delenda est.

Third part in German

The translation of the third section of Ferdinand Bardamu’s essay about the extreme toxicity of Christianity for the white race is available in the German section of this site (here).

The English original can be read at the end of The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour (see sidebar).

Published in: on December 5, 2021 at 10:30 am  Comments Off on Third part in German  
Tags:

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 51

The Tischgespräche, the Führer’s table talks with a few senior party officials, senior SS officers or foreign guests[1], are instructive in this respect. Even more instructive, perhaps, are certain reports that are hostile to Hitlerism, all the more virulent because their authors are angrier at having initially followed Adolf Hitler in the wrong direction, and at having felt themselves to be fools in retrospect—wrongly, no doubt, for it must have been very difficult to grasp the true thinking of the Master before being part of the narrow circle of people who enjoyed his confidence.

Such is, for example, the book by the former President of the Senate of the Free City of Danzig, Hermann Rauschning, Hitler Told Me which had, in its time, some notoriety since in 1939 the thirteenth French edition of it was already published: an excellent book, despite of the aggressiveness that pierces every line. The fact that Rauschning himself seems to be completely unaware of the cyclical conception of history and, in general, of the supra-human truths which are the basis of all ancient wisdom, makes the judgements he believes he is making against the Führer all the more eloquent by accusing him (without knowing it) of waging his struggle precisely in the name of these truths. Finally, nothing can shed light on certain aspects of Hitlerism like Hans Grimm’s book Warum? Woher? aber Wohin?, a work by an impartial non-Hitlerite, or the account given by Auguste Kubizek, a man with no political allegiance whatsoever, of his years of friendship with the future Führer, then aged between fifteen and nineteen, in his book Adolf Hitler, mein Jugendfreund.[2]

The first thing that strikes one on reading these various texts is Adolf Hitler’s awareness of the speed with which everything is falling apart in our time, and of the total reversal of values that the slightest recovery would mean. It is also the very clear feeling he seems to have had that his action represented the last chance of the Aryan race as well as the last (at least theoretical) possibility of recovery, before the end of the present cycle.

This sentiment was coupled with the conviction that he himself was not ‘the last’ fighter against the forces of disintegration; not the One who would usher in the glorious ‘Golden Age’ of the next cycle. Five years before the seizure of power, the Führer said in all simplicity to Hans Grimm: ‘I know that someone must appear, and face our situation. I have been looking for this man. I have not been able to find him anywhere, and that is why I have arisen, to carry out the preparatory task, only the urgent preparatory task, for I know that I am not the One who is to come. And I also know what I lack. But the Other remains absent, and no one is there, and there is no more time to waste’.[3]

There is even reason to believe that he sensed—if not knew; I will come back to this point—the inevitability of disaster and the need for him to sacrifice himself. But just as his vision was centred on the German people but went far beyond Germany, so his defeat was to be a catastrophe on a planetary scale (which it was, indeed) and his sacrifice was to take on an unsuspected significance.
 

______ 卐 ______

 

Note of the Editor: In 1955 the notable Mexican José Vasconcelos (see my 2011 article: here) wrote a preface for Salvador Borrego’s main work, Derrota Mundial [World Defeat], in which Borrego argues that the world lost with the defeat of Germany. In 2015, on Borrego’s 100th birthday, David Duke, Ernst Zündel and Mark Weber visited him in Mexico. The four of them can be seen in this photograph; Weber appears to the far left; Zündel in the middle.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
He told Hermann Rauschning: ‘If we fail to win, we will drag half the world down with us, and no one will be able to rejoice in a victory over Germany’ and: ‘He could not otherwise accomplish his mission’, notes this author, without apparently realising the significance of such an assertion.[4]

So what was this ‘mission’, so imperious although He who knew he was in charge of it could, at times, foresee its failure? It was that of all those beings, both human and more than human—in India they are called avatars or descents of the divine Spirit in the visible and tangible world—who, from age to age, have fought against the tide of Time, for the restoration of a material order in the image of the eternal Order: that of the God Krishna, that of the Prophet Mohammed, and, in Germanic legend, truer than history: that of the hero Siegfried, like them both initiate and warrior.

Such a mission always implies the destruction of the decadent world, without which the restoration of a hierarchical society according to eternal values would be unthinkable. It therefore implies the recognition of the reign of evil, of the ‘triumph of injustice’[5] that is, what is contrary to the divine Order, at the time of the combatant—and the exaltation of combat. Undoubtedly, people who militate by violence against an already bad established order, in favour of a ‘new world’ even worse from the viewpoint of natural hierarchies, are also dissatisfied people who aren’t afraid of armed struggle. But, as I have tried to show above, it is the nature of their dream, not the methods employed for its realisation, which places them exactly opposite the fighters against time.

There are reckless, irresponsible fighters—both in the direction of temporal evolution and against it. There are millions of people of ‘goodwill’—liberals, individualists, pacifists, ‘friends of man’ of all stripes—who, mostly through sheer ignorance or laziness of mind, follow the deceptive suggestions of the agents of the Dark Forces, and contribute, with the most generous intentions in the world, to accelerating the pace of universal degeneration.

There are also people perfectly unconscious of the eternal laws of the visible as well as the subtle Universe, who militate enthusiastically for selection in battle, for the segregation of races, and, in general, for an aristocratic conception of the world, by instinct—simply out of horror of the physical and moral ugliness of men, and out of hatred of the prejudices and institutions which encourage its generalisation. Many of us are among them. Nobler than the former, since they are centred on beauty which, in its essence, merges with Truth, they are, despite everything, just as unresponsible in the strong sense of the word, because they are just as attached to the realm of impression, that is to say, to the subjective.

But it is different with leaders… all the more so with the founders of new times.

The real initiator of a subversive movement in the sense I have given above, can only be a man in possession of some degree of undeniable knowledge. But he uses it in reverse: for purposes contrary to the spirit of true hierarchies, therefore contrary to those which a wise man’s action should take. On the other hand, the founder and leader of a faith ‘against Time’—as Adolf Hitler was—can only be one of those men whom I have, in another book,[6] called ‘above Time’: a sage, an initiate in union with the Divine and simultaneously a warrior—and perhaps also a ‘politician’—ready to employ, at the level of the contingencies of the visible world, all the means he knows to be effective, and judging a means only by its effectiveness.

He can only be a man both above Time, as regards his being, and against Time, as regards his action in the world; in other words, a warrior (or a politician, or both) fighting against the order, institutions and powers of his time, with whatever weapons he can muster, with a view to an (at least temporary) ‘recovery’ of society, inspired by a Golden Age ideal: a will to bring the ‘new’ order into accord with the Eternal Order.

Now, I repeat: the texts, the facts, the whole history and atmosphere of National Socialism become fully comprehensible only if, once and for all, one admits that Adolf Hitler was such a man: the most recent manifestation, among us, of the One who returns from age to age ‘for the protection of the righteous, for the destruction of those who do evil, for the firm establishment of the order according to the nature of things’.[7]

_________

[1] Translated into French under the title Libres propos sur la Guerre et la Paix, by R. d’Harcourt.

[2] A (shortened) French translation was published by Gallimard.

[3] Hans Grimm, Warum? Woher? aber Wohin? published by Klosterhaus Verlag, Lippoldsberg, in 1954; page 14.

[4] Hermann Rauschning, Hitler m’a dit, 13th French edition, 1939, pages 142 & 279.

[5] Bhagawad-Gîta, IV, verse 7.

[6] The Lightning and the Sun, written from 1948 to 1956, published in Calcutta in 1958.

[7] Bhagawad-Gîta, IV, verse 8.

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 41

It is the bloodshed that accompanied the seizure of power by these ideological movements that gives the illusion. We readily imagine that killing is synonymous with revolution and that the more a change is historically linked to massacres, the more profound it is in itself. We also imagine that it is all the more radical the more visibly it affects the political order. But this is not the case. One of the most real and lasting changes in known history, the transition of multitudes of Hindus of all castes from Brahmanism to Buddhism between the 3rd and 1st centuries BC, took place not only without bloodshed, without revolution in the popular sense of the word, but without the least political upheaval. Nevertheless, Buddhism, even though it was later practically eliminated from India, has left its mark on the country forever.[1]

Marxism-Leninism is, despite the persecutions, the battles, the mass executions, the tortures, the slow deaths in the concentration camps and the political overthrows which have everywhere accompanied its victory, far too much ‘in line’ with the evolution of the West—and of the world, increasingly dominated by Western technology, to deserve the name of ‘revolutionary doctrine’.

Fundamentally, it represents the logical continuation, the inevitable continuation, of the system of ideas and values which underlies and sustains the world which arose both from the French Revolution and the increasing industrialisation of the 19th century; the seeds of this system were already found in the quasi-religious respect of the Jacobins for ‘science’ and its application to the ‘happiness’ of the greatest number of men, all ‘equal in rights’ and before that, the notion of ‘universal conscience’ linked to ‘reason’: the same for all, as it appears in Kant, Rousseau and Descartes.

It represents the logical continuation of that attitude which holds as legitimate any revolt against a traditional authority in the name of ‘reason’, ‘conscience’ and above all of the so-called ‘facts’ brought to light by ‘scientific’ research. It completes the series of all these stages of human thought, each of which constitutes a negation of the hierarchical diversity of beings, including men: an abandonment of the primitive humility of the sage, before the eternal wisdom; a break with the spirit of all traditions of more than human origin. It represents, at the stage we have reached, the natural culmination of a whole evolution which merges with the very unfolding of our cycle: unfolding which accelerates, as it approaches its end, according to the immutable law of all cycles.

It has certainly not ‘revolutionised’ anything. It has only fulfilled the possibilities of expressing the permanent tendency of the cycle, as the increasingly rapid expansion of technology coincides with the pervasive increase in the population of the globe. In short, it is ‘in line’ with the cycle, especially the latter part of it.

Christianity was, of course, at least as dramatic a change for the Ancient World as victorious Communism is for today’s world. But it had an esoteric side that linked it, despite everything, to Tradition from which it derived its justification as a religion. It was its exoteric aspect that made it, in the hands of the powerful who encouraged or imposed it, first of all in the hands of Constantine, the instrument of domination assured by a more or less rapid lowering of the racial elites; by a political unification from below.[2]

It is this same exoteric aspect, in particular the enormous importance it gave to all ‘human souls’, that compels Adolf Hitler to see in Christianity the ‘prefiguration of Bolshevism’: the ‘mobilisation, by the Jew, of the mass of slaves to undermine society’, the egalitarian and anthropocentric doctrine, anti-racist to the highest degree, capable of winning over the countless uprooted of Rome and the Romanised Near East. It is this doctrine that Hitler attacks in all his criticisms of the Christian religion, in particular in the comparison he constantly makes between the Jew Saul of Tarsus, the St. Paul of the Churches, and the Jew Mardoccai, alias Karl Marx.

But it could be said that Christian anthropocentrism, separated of course from its theological basis, already existed in the thought of the Hellenistic and then the Roman world; that it even represented, more and more, the common denominator of the ‘intellectuals’ as well as the plebs of these worlds. I even wonder if we do not see it taking shape from further back, because in the 6th century BC Thales of Miletus thanked, it is said, the Gods for having created him ‘to be human, and not animal; male, not female; Hellene, not Barbarian’ meaning a foreigner.

It is more than likely that, already in Alexandrian times, a sage would have rejected the last two, especially the last one!, of these three reasons to give thanks to Heaven. But he would have retained the first. And it is doubtful that he would have justified it with as much simple common sense as Thales.
 

______ 卐 ______

 

Editor’s Note: Here I agree with Thales. But keep in mind that if Thales had not been an Aryan, I’d agree with Savitri. The point is that only the most beautiful specimens of the Aryan race are the image and likeness of divinity. The rest are, using the language of the priest of the 14 words, exterminable Neanderthals.

 

______ 卐 ______

 
Now any exaltation of ‘man’ considered in himself, and not as a level to be surpassed, automatically leads to the over-estimation of both the masses and individuals with interesting hands; to a morbid concern for their ‘happiness’ at any cost; therefore, to an utilitarian attitude above all in the face of knowledge as well as of creative action.

In other words, if, on the one hand, in the Hellenistic world—then in the Roman world—esoteric doctrines more or less related to Tradition—that is, doctrines ‘above Time’—have flourished within certain schools of ancient wisdom—among the Neo-Platonists, the Neo-Pythagoreans and certain Christians—it is, on the other hand, quite certain that all that conquering Christianity (exoteric, and to what degree!) was, as was the widespread interest in the applications of experimental science, in the direction of the Cycle.

The fact that the Churches have, later on in the centuries opposed the statement of several scientific truths, ‘contrary to dogma’ or supposedly so, doesn’t change anything. This is, in fact, a pure rivalry between powers aiming at the ‘happiness of man’—in the other world or this one—and embarrassing each other as two suppliers of similar commodities.

If the Churches today are giving more and more ground, if they are all (including the Roman Church) more tolerant of those of their members who like Teilhard de Chardin give ‘science’ the largest share, it is because they know that people are more and more interested in the visible world and the benefits that flow from its knowledge, and less and less to what cannot be seen or ‘proved’—and they do what they can to keep their flock. They ‘go with the flow’ while pointing out as often as possible that the anthropocentric ‘values’ of the atheists are, in fact, their own; that they even owe them, without realising it.

No doctrine, no faith linked to these values is ‘revolutionary’ whatever the arguments on which it is based, whether drawn from a ‘revealed’ morality or from an economic ‘science’.

The real revolutionaries are those who militate not against the institutions of one day, in the name of the ‘sense of history’, but against the sense of history in the name of timeless Truth; against this race to decadence characteristic of every cycle approaching its end, in the name of their nostalgia for the beauty of all great beginnings, of all the beginnings of cycles.

These are precisely those who take the opposite view of the so-called ‘values’ in which the inevitable decadence inherent in every manifestation in Time has gradually asserted itself and continues to assert itself. They are, in our time, the followers of the one I have called ‘the Man against Time’, Adolf Hitler. They are, in the past, all those who, like him, have fought against the tide, the growing thrust of the Forces of the Abyss, and prepared his work from far and near—his work and that of the divine Destroyer, immensely harder, more implacable, further from man than he, whom the faithful of all forms of Tradition await under various names ‘at the end of the centuries’.
__________

[1] The same could be said of Jainism, which still has one or two million followers there.

[2] Racial purity no longer played any role under Constantine. And even in the Germanic but Christian empire of Charlemagne much later, a Christian Gallo-Roman had more consideration than a Saxon or other pagan German.

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 25

Perhaps the notion of the irrevocable ‘existence’ of the past is of little consolation to those tormented by nostalgia for happy times, lived or imagined. Time refuses to suspend its flight at the plea of the poet enamoured of fleeting beauty—whether it be an hour of silent communion with the beloved woman (and, through her, and beyond her, with the harmony of the spheres), or an hour of glory, i.e. communion, in the glare of fanfares or the thunder of arms, or the roar of frenzied crowds, with the soul of a whole people and, through it and beyond it, again and again, with the Divine: another aspect of the Divine.

It is possible, sometimes, and usually without any special effort of memory, to relive, as if in a flash, a moment of one’s own past and with incredible intensity, as if one’s self-consciousness were suddenly hallucinated without the senses being the least bit affected. A small thing—a taste, very present, like that of the petite Madeleine cited by Proust in his famous analysis of reliving; a furtive odour, once breathed in; a melody that one had thought forgotten, a simple sound like that of water falling drop by drop—is enough to put, for an instant, the consciousness in a state that it ‘knows’ to be the same as the one it knew, years and sometimes decades, more than half a century earlier; a state of euphoria or anxiety, or even anguish, depending on the moment that has miraculously re-emerged from the mist of the past: a moment that had not ceased to ‘exist’ in the manner of things past, but which suddenly takes on the sharpness and relief of the present, as if a mysterious spotlight directed the daylight of the living actuality.

But these experiences are rare. And if it is possible to evoke them, they do not last long, even in very capable people of evoking their memories. Moreover, they only concern—except in very exceptional cases—the personal past of the person who ‘revives’ such a state or such an episode, not the historical past.

Yet there are people who are much more interested in the history of their people—or even that of other people—than in their own past. And although scholars, whose job it is to do so, succeed in reconstructing as best they can, from relics and documents, what at first sight appears to be the ‘essentials’ of history, and although some scholars sometimes astonish their readers or listeners by the number and thoroughness of the details they know about the habits of a particular character, the intrigues of a particular chancellery, or the daily life of such and such a vanished people, it is no less certain that the past of the civilised world—the easiest to grasp, however, since it has left visible traces—escapes us.

We know it indirectly and in bits and pieces, that our investigators try to put together, like a game of patience in which half or three-quarters of the puzzle are missing. And even if we possessed all the elements, we would still not know it, because to know is to live, or re-live, and no individual subjected to the category of Time can live history. What this individual can, at most, know directly, that is to say, live, and what he can then remember, sometimes with incredible clarity, is the history of his time insofar as he himself has contributed to making it; in other words, his own history, situated in a whole that exceeds it and often crushes it.

This is undoubtedly a truer story than the one that scholars will one day reconstruct. For what appears to be the ‘essence’ of an epoch, studied through documents and remains, is not. What is essential is the atmosphere of an epoch, or a moment within it: the atmosphere that can only be grasped through the direct experience of someone who lived it: one whose personal history is steeped in it. Guy Sajer, in his admirable book The Forgotten Soldier, has given us the essence of the Russian campaign from 1941 to 1945.

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s Note: This is absolutely true. One of the reasons why I prefer lucid essays like the one by Evropa Soberana on the Judean war against Rome (the masthead of this site) to the scholarly book that Karlheinz Deschner wrote about that epoch, is that Soberana transports us to that world—as in another literary genre Gore Vidal’s Julian has transported us to 4th-century Rome. Academic books are extremely misleading in that they don’t transport us back in time. We desperately need the visuals of what happened. That’s why I like the metaphor of the last greenseer, Bloodraven: the man fused to a tree that could see the past.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
He was able to put in his pages such a force of suggestion, precisely because, along with thousands of others in this campaign of Russia in the ranks of the Wehrmacht, then in the elite Grossdeutschland Division, it represents a slice of his own life.

When, three thousand years from now, historians want to have an idea of what the Second World War was like on this particular front, they will get a much better idea by reading Sajer’s book (which deserves to survive) than by trying to reconstruct, with the help of sporadic impersonal documents, the advance and retreat of the Reich’s armies. But, I repeat, they will acquire an idea of it, not a knowledge, much in the way we have one today of the decline of Egypt on the international scene at the end of the 20th Dynasty, through what remains of the juicy report of Wenamon, special envoy of Ramses XI (or rather of the high priest Herihor) to Zakarbaal, king of Gebal, or Gubla, which the Greeks call Byblos, in 1117 BC.

Nothing gives us a more intense experience of what I have called in other writings the ‘bondage of Time’ than this impossibility of letting our ‘self’ travel in the historical past that we have not lived, and of which we cannot therefore ‘remember’. Nothing makes us feel our isolation within our own epoch like our inability to live directly, at will, in some other time, in some other country; to travel in time as we travel in space.

We can visit the whole earth as it is today, but not see it as it once was. We cannot, for instance, actually immerse ourselves in the atmosphere of the temple of Karnak—or even only one street in Thebes—under Themose III; to find ourselves in Babylon at the time of Hammurabi, or with the Aryas before they left the old Arctic homeland; or among the artists painting the frescoes in the caves of Lascaux or Altamira, as we have somewhere in the world in our own epoch, having travelled there on foot or by car, by train, by boat or by plane.

And this impression of a definitive barrier—which lets us divine some outlines but prohibits us forever a more precise vision—is all the more painful, perhaps, because the civilisation we would like to know directly is chronologically closer to us, while being qualitatively more different from the one in whose midst we are forced to remain.

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s Note: In my fantasy that such a thing as the Wall existed, and have the last greenseer as our tutor, I imagine that I would spend an inordinate amount of time visiting ancient Sparta, and other cities where the Norse race remained unpolluted for centuries. I would visit all the temples of classical religion not only in Greece but in Rome, trying to capture through their art the Aryan spirit in its noblest expression.

But above all I would pay close attention to the human physiognomy of living characters before they mixed their blood with mudbloods.

Only he who actually sees the past as it was, has a good grasp of History.

The saddest thing of all is that pure Nordids still exist, but the current System is doing everything possible to exterminate them (as in Song of Ice and Fire the children of the forest was a species on the verge of extinction).

______ 卐 ______

 
History has always fascinated me: the history of the whole world, in all its richness. But it is particularly painful for me to know that I’ll never be able to know pre-Columbian America directly… by going to live there for a while; that it will never again be possible to see Tenochtitlan, or Cuzco, as the Spaniards first saw them, four hundred and fifty years ago, or less, that is to say yesterday. As a teenager, I cursed the conquerors who changed the face of the New World. I wished that no one had discovered it so that it would remain intact. Then we could have known it without going back in time; we could have known it as it was on the eve of the conquest, or rather as a natural evolution would have modified it little by little over four or five centuries, without destroying its characteristic traits.

But it goes without saying that my real torment, since the disaster of 1945, has been the knowledge that it is now impossible for me to have any direct experience of the atmosphere of the German Third Reich, in which I did not, alas, live.

Believing that it was to last indefinitely—that there would be no war or that, if there were, Hitlerian Germany would emerge victorious—I had the false impression that there was no hurry to return to Europe and that, moreover, I was useful to the Aryan cause where I was.

Now that it is all over, I think with bitterness that only thirty years ago[1] one could immerse oneself immediately, without the intermediary of texts, pictures, records, or comrades’ stories, in that atmosphere of fervour and order, of power and manly beauty, that of Hitlerian civilisation. Thirty years! It is not ‘yesterday’, it is today: a few minutes ago. And I have the feeling that I have missed very closely both the life and the death—the glorious death, in the service of our Führer—that should have been mine.

But one cannot ‘go back’ five minutes, let alone 1500 years or 500 million years, into the unalterable past, now transformed into ‘eternity’—timeless existence. And it is as impossible to attend the National Socialist Party Congress of September 1935 today as it is to walk the earth at the time when it seemed to have become forever the domain of the dinosaurs… except for one of those very few sages who have, through asceticism and the transposition of consciousness, freed themselves from the bonds of time.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s Note: ‘I saw your birth, and that of your lord father before you. I saw your first step, heard your first word, was part of your first dream. I was watching when you fell. And now you are come to me at last, Brandon Stark, though the hour is late’…

‘Time is different for a tree than for a man. Sun and soil and water, these are the things a weirwood understands, not days and years and centuries. For men, time is a river. We are trapped in its flow, hurtling from past to present, always in the same direction. The lives of trees are different. They root and grow and die in one place, and that river does not move them. The oak is the acorn, the acorn is the oak’ (Boodraven to his pupil in George R.R. Martin’s A Dance with Dragons).

[1] This was written in 1969 or 1970.

Published in: on October 8, 2021 at 5:53 pm  Comments Off on Reflections of an Aryan woman, 25  

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 24

 

Chapter V

History, Action and the Timeless

‘Time, Space and Number
Fell from the black firmament,
Into the still and sombre sea.
Shroud of silence and shade,
The night erases absolutely
Time, Space and Number’.

—Leconte de Lisle (‘Villanelle’, Poèmes Tragiques)

Have you ever worried about the irremediable flight of hours, and the impossibility of going back in time? And have you felt how we are prisoners of time, in all that concerns our sensitive experience? Prisoners of space, certainly, since we are material bodies, even if we are not only that, and a body cannot be conceived independently of its position concerning reference points—but even more so prisoners of time, since a temporal succession is necessarily oriented, and can only be experienced in a direction from the past, frozen in its irrevocability, towards the future, perhaps just as irrevocable but apprehended as an indefinity of possible situations (of more or less probable virtualities) as long as it has not become ‘present’, that is to say, definitive history?

There is, of course, a limit to the possibilities that a body of flesh, blood and nerves such as ours can travel through space. Men have managed, at the price, it is true, of enormous inconvenience, but they have finally managed, to leave the field of attraction of the Earth, of which they had hitherto been the captives, and to launch themselves beyond it. Oh, not very far! Only as far as the Moon, the immediate vicinity of our planet. (It should be said in passing that it was Aryans, one Aryan especially, the mathematician von Braun, who made this feat possible, and other Aryans who achieved it.) This is only the beginning. But this ‘first step’ allows ‘all hopes’ say the experts who have studied the question. What they pompously call ‘the conquest of space’ would only be a matter of technical progress, thus of study and patience.

There is, however, a limit, it seems. For if technical progress is indefinite, so is physical space. It is unwise to make predictions in this area. Who could have said, only a few decades ago, that men would one day actually see our Earth rising and setting: a huge luminous disc, blue and white, against a black background on the lunar horizon? It seems very unlikely to me that man will ever venture outside our solar system, which is so vast on our scale, and so infinitesimal on the cosmic scale. But it remains certain that, even if it remains forever impossible in practice to cross a limit (of which we are still unaware), we can nevertheless imagine an indefinite expansion in this direction.

Beyond the last limit reached, whether within the solar system or further away, there will always be ‘room’: an untravelled distance that we could travel if we had more powerful means. There is no theoretical limit. Space is essentially what can be travelled in every direction. In fact, there would be no practical limit for a hypothetical explorer who wouldn’t need to eat, sleep and wear out and who operated a transport device capable of renewing its driving energy. And even if it can never be materially realised, one can imagine such a journey lasting forever, through space.

On the other hand, we know that, even with the help of the most excellent memory, it is impossible to go back in time and, even with the help of a lot of political intuition and individual and collective psychology, to follow the course of time beyond tomorrow, or even ‘tonight’. I mentioned above the irrevocability of the past, which can be forgotten or distorted—which is bound to be distorted, even when we try to reconstruct it impartially—but that one cannot change; which is now out of reach, as if printed forever in an immense impersonal and infallible memory: the memory of the Universe out of our reach, but also out of range, unknowable, because not directly relivable.

We often hear it said that ‘the past is nothing’, that ‘what is no longer is as if it had never been’.

I, for one, have never been able to understand this assimilation of the living data of yesterday and the day before yesterday, to pure nothingness. Perhaps I have too much memory. It is not the absence of the past—the impossibility of ‘recapturing’ it—that strikes me most, but on the contrary its eternal presence: the impossibility of altering the slightest detail of it. What is done, or said or thought has been done, said, thought. One can do something else, say something else, direct one’s thoughts in a completely different direction. But this ‘other thing’, this ‘converted’ thought (turned in another direction) are new irrevocable things, which are superimposed on the first without destroying them. I have, as far back as I can remember, always felt this.

As a child, I attended a free school, a Catholic school, and took catechism lessons with the other little girls. We were told, among other things, that ‘God can do anything’. Having each time reflected on such a statement, I ventured one day to ask for the floor, and said, as soon as I was free to speak: ‘I came to class today at eight o’clock in the morning, Lyon time. Can ‘God’ make it so that this is no longer true, but that I came, let us say, at half-past eight, still Lyon time? Can he change the past?
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s Note. There is a saying in the language of Cervantes: “Palo dado ¡ni Dios lo quita!”, literally, ‘Hit given [a blow with a stick] not even God takes it away!’ (i.e., what’s done is done. The closest English idiom is ‘A bell can’t be unrung’).

Like Savitri, I am infinitely passionate about the past, as can be seen in the image at the bottom of this site: the child Bran would learn how to retrocognitively see our historical past thanks to the heart tree. That image became the logo of this site: one of the mysteries to most visitors.

The past is the present: If Columbus’s caravels had sunk in an Atlantic storm, we wouldn’t be here.

When I say the historical past I mean the real past, which Bran has access to through magic north of the Wall. I am not referring to the history books written by Christians and neochristians (that is, secular liberals). They lie about what really happened.
 

______ 卐 ______

 

Since the teacher was unable to answer my question in a way that satisfied my young mind, I detached myself a little more from the idea of this all-too-human ‘God’ that was being presented to me: the god whose shocking partiality towards ‘man’ had begun, at the dawn of my life, to repulse me. And the irrevocability of the past, of the present moment as soon as it fell into the past, always haunted me: a source of joy, a source of anxiety, a precious knowledge since it dominated the conduct of my life.

More than forty years later, in 1953, I was to write a prose poem, each stanza of which ends with the words: ‘While we never forget, never forgive’. I evoked there the memory of the glory that was the Third German Reich, and also of my bitterness (and that of my comrades) at the thought of the relentless persecution of our people, and of all the efforts made after the Second World War to kill our Hitlerian faith.

This attitude was not, for me, new. At the age of eight, only a few months before the First World War, had I not once declared that I ‘hated Christianity because it makes it a duty of the faithful to forgive’, revolted as I was at the idea of ‘forgiveness’ granted to children guilty of torturing insects or other defenceless animals, as well as to grown-ups who have committed gratuitous atrocities at any time, provided that the cowardly, and therefore degrading act is followed by repentance, however tardy?

Forgiveness or forgetting can completely change the relationship between people, as long as it is given wholeheartedly. It cannot change what is once and for all stereotyped in the past. It is not even certain that the relationship between individuals and entire peoples would improve much, if the former began to practice forgiveness of offences, trivial and serious, and if the latter suppressed, suddenly, the teaching of history among their young people. They would stop hating each other for the reasons they are despised, or at least opposed, today. But given human nature with its lusts, vanity and selfishness they would soon discover other pretexts for enmity.

Animals have short memories, and how! Each generation, unaware of man’s repeated cruelties, is ready to trust him again, and in the case of domesticated animals to give him the unconditional love of which only unreasoning beings are capable. And yet… this total oblivion doesn’t improve at all the conduct of men towards the rest of creation. Wouldn’t the forgetting of history have, between men this time, a similar result or rather a similar lack of result?

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s Note: This is exactly why the entire contemporary white nationalist movement is animal quackery. If they had a noble heart, the first thing they would do is denounce the Hellstorm Holocaust with the same mania as the media at the hands of Jews speak of their Shoah. But it should come as no surprise if we take into account that the majority of white nationalists are Christian or neochristian.

______ 卐 ______

 
In any case, no ‘new beginning’, however happy, can obscure what once happened. To have been, even once, is, in a way, to be forever. Neither forgetting nor forgiveness, nor even the indefinite succession of millennia, can do anything about it. And the smallest events, the smallest on our scale, are as indelible as those we consider the most important. Everything ‘exists’ in the manner of things ‘past’: past in the eyes of individuals who can only live their experience according to a ‘before’ and an ‘after’.

Morgan’s flawed philosophy

Dr. Robert Morgan is a notable commenter on The Unz Review. His main mistake is his unilinear philosophy of history. In reality, as the historian Hugh Trevor Roper put it, history is not just what happened but what could have happened (for example, if whites hadn’t gone bananas after Constantine).

If a Jewish sect hadn’t seized the soul of the Greco-Romans, technology and military science wouldn’t have been interrupted. A horde of Mongols would have had no chance against a Roman Empire that hadn’t declined technologically. The West wouldn’t have been easy prey to invasions by non-whites as it was in the history we know.

Morgan’s anti-technological take of history is nonsense. When I attended a CSICOP conference in 1994, Carl Sagan said that the West inflicted on itself a prefrontal lobotomy with what it did to Hypatia and the Alexandria library during the hostile takeover of Christian fanatics. If what Morgan believes is true, the West wouldn’t have been on the verge of succumbing to Islam and, more specifically, to the Huns and Mongols after the Christians destroyed almost all the technological knowledge accumulated by the ancient Greeks and Romans. (We were spared by a historical miracle in the case of the Mongols!)

If I were a film director I would make films about this parallel world that didn’t exist: a Roman Empire without Christianity where eventually the scientific method that the Greeks were very close to discover would be discovered, and how without Christian ethics and the technology applied to the military whites wouldn’t have only pulverised the Huns and the nascent Islam but even the Mongols.

My pals who comment on The Unz Review (Morgan et al) haven’t been paying attention to what I said at the end of ‘The Iron Throne’, where I link to William Pierce’s history of the West. There is no point in arguing with them unless they read Pierce’s book.

Update of May 28

Yesterday I visited Morgan’s latest comments on The Unz Review and came across a crazy pronouncement regarding the Third Reich, responding to a guy using a Nietzschean penname.

Morgan said that over time, even if Hitler had won the war, the Nazis would’ve become corrupted by technology, allowing the loosening of customs, even racial purity, etc.

That is what I call megalomania in psychologicis: believing that one has psychological access to a parallel future where all roads lead to Aryan decline, even a triumphant Nazi Reich, due to tech and Morgan’s nasty philosophy of absolute determinism (which reminds me of the doctrine of those predestined to eternal damnation).

What madness. I think I’ll no longer be quoting what Morgan says.