Peterson’s tears

This was recorded on Uncle Adolf’s birthday last month, I’ve just watched Peter Robinson’s interview with Jordan Peterson.

Robinson is alarmed by the rise of the Woke Monster. But unlike me, who already sees the mental virus of this monster in the tiny mustard seed of the gospel (which has now grown into a huge tree where birds nest), Peterson said that cognitively we needed ‘Judeo-Christian ethic’, his words.

Robinson quoted Chesterton: ‘The Declaration of Independence dogmatically bases all rights on the fact that God created all men equal; and it is right; for if they were not created equal, they were certainly evolved unequal. There is no basis for democracy except in a dogma about the divine origin of man’. I couldn’t have put it better myself! American democracy is the creature of Judeo-Christian ethic, but in the sense that democracy is the most aberrant system the Westerner has ever devised, something that Plato saw (it is the priest of the sacred words who must reign, someone analogous to Plato’s philosopher-king).

Speaking of kids who are lobotomised in universities, Robinson says that they believe all the propaganda of the elites: ‘If you don’t have some notion of the transcendent, if you don’t have some notion of the divine, you believe any damn thing’. Peterson Christianised that statement by alluding to Dostoyevsky: ‘If there is no God everything is permitted’ and a couple of minutes later added that he acted as if God existed, without answering whether he believed in the existence of God. This reminded me of the way Kant ended his second Critique, but the serious thing is that neither Kant nor Peterson realise that they are creatures of daddy’s introjects; that our view of ‘God’ has been contaminated by the Christianity of our parents: Kant’s extremely puritanical parents, Peterson’s, Robinson’s and my own parents (see the third volume of my autobiographical trilogy, which is now once again available in the language in which I wrote it).

At the end of minute fifty-three, Peterson said he wanted to understand the psychological motivation for why atrocities are committed, and gave the example of wanting to understand the mind of the Auschwitz guard. Peterson wasn’t honest in his analysis. He had the privilege of writing a foreword to the 50th anniversary of The Gulag Archipelago, but in another of his lectures he didn’t dare to answer a question from the audience about the same Russian author’s other non-fiction book, 200 Years Together.

If Peterson were honest, in 200 Years Together he would have begun to glimpse the answer to what he calls the ‘atrocity’ of Auschwitz. The next step would have been to read the Jewish Lindemann’s chapter on this subject in Esau’s Tears, a book published by a respected university, where he gives context as to why the German state took such prophylactic measures (an incredible thing to come from the pen of a Jew). And if Peterson had wanted to graduate on the subject of Auschwitz, then he would have read what Savitri Devi said in the book we recently translated into English for this site (a book I would love to have in my Daybreak Press so that it could be sold in print form to visitors to this site).

Savitri died forty years ago. If Peterson were honest, he would ask those who advance the POV of exterminationist anti-Semitism why they believe that; say, by interviewing Alex Linder. But one who couldn’t bring himself to answer in public a simple question about a study of Jewry in Russia—Solzhenitsyn’s second and last non-fiction book—will be much more incapable of pondering the mind of the Other honestly. And even if Linder’s arguments seemed limited to this hypothetical Peterson who would dare to interview him, a more substantive response would be Savitri’s book. (But fully digesting Savitri is something that even the so-called neo-Nazis fail to do, since more than Nazis they are American white nationalists using NS paraphernalia.)

Surprisingly, Peterson ends his speech by invoking the fear of hell: one of the central themes in some chapters of my trilogy. And it is precisely because of this that I feel infinitely more mature than Peterson in terms of knowing oneself. On another note, in the final minute Peterson used a swear word in criticising one of his academic colleagues, who had said, ‘We have to demoralise the youth to become ethical’. When he said that Peterson cried…

It’s worth watching the interview to get to that final minute. The sad thing is that Peterson fails to realise that the Woke Monster is due precisely to that campaign of demoralisation waged since 1945.

As long as Peterson hasn’t yet set foot in the waters of the psychological Rubicon, to use my metaphor, he is still firmly in Normieland. That Peterson can dedicate the foreword to the recent edition of The Gulag Archipelago but is unable to comment about the Russian author’s other non-fiction book speaks more eloquently than anything I could say in a single post.

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…


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.


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.

‘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.


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.



[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).

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 86

But that’s not all. The visible world around them was infinitely more beautiful than what is spread out today—or was spread out already yesterday and the day before yesterday—, in the vicinity of human agglomerations. It was more beautiful because there were then few men, and many animals, and trees, and immense inviolate spaces.

There is no worse enemy of the beauty of the world than the unlimited proliferation of man. There is no worse enemy of the quality of man himself than this overgrowth: it cannot be repeated too often that a choice must be made between ‘quantity’ and ‘quality’.

______ 卐 ______


Editor’s note: This is where the light-years of distance between Savitri and me compared to today’s racialists is most noticeable. It isn’t enough to say that there are billions of Neanderthals on the planet who disfigure the world. The Mauritian scale has to be climbed to level 10. In other words, grab hold of the Christian ethics that our parents and secular schooling instilled in us, wipe our asses with it, and do it publicly (as Putin is currently defecating on American hubris).

The Aryan who fails to understand this is not a real Aryan but a eunuch lobotomised with NT values.

______ 卐 ______

The history of our cycle is, like that of any cycle, the history of an indefinitely prolonged struggle between quality and quantity, until the victory of the latter: a complete victory, but a very short one, since it necessarily coincides with the end of the cycle, and the coming of the Avenger, whom I have called by his Sanskrit name: Kalki.

If I say that the heroic but practically useless attempt at ‘recovery’ represented by Hitlerism is the last—beyond which any effort of whatever magnitude against the current of Time, is doomed to immediate failure—it is because I know of no force in the present world able to stop universal decadence, in particular to pitilessly reduce the number of men while raising the quality of the survivors; none, that is, apart from that sole champion of the Powers of Light and Life, fully victorious: Kalki. Despite all the power and the prestige at his disposal, Adolf Hitler was unable to create—recreate—the conditions that were and remain essential for the blossoming of a Golden Age. He could neither suppress technology nor reduce the number of people in the world to anything like one-thousandth of what it is today, that is, practically to what it was during the centuries before our Dark Age.

It is possible and even probable that, victorious, he would have tried to do so, gradually. But his victory would have had to be complete, and not only on a European but on a world scale; and there would have been no power on earth to rival his and to thwart his work.

But then he would have been Kalki Himself, and we would now be living at the dawn of a new cycle. In fact, he needed technology, and at least a growing German population, to carry out his fight against the tide of time under the present conditions.

If, like many of his great predecessors who left behind them new civilisations, he had been partially successful in material terms, his work would hardly have lasted at all, simply because it was set in an era so close to the end of the cycle. Everything suggests that it would have deteriorated in a few years, given the sordid selfishness and stupidity of the vast majority of our contemporaries, even of the best races. The most skilful cook cannot make an appetising and healthy omelette with rotten eggs.

However atrocious it may seem to us, with its immediate and distant consequences, the military defeat of 1945 was still better than the galloping degeneration of a Hitlerian civilisation that appeared too late, after the definitive closure of the era of possible, albeit ephemeral, rectification!

Even in the collapse of the Third German Reich, even in the horror of the last days of the Führer and his ultimate followers in the Chancellery Bunker, under the blazing inferno that Berlin had become, there is a grandeur worthy of the tragedies of Aeschylus or the Wagnerian Tetralogy. The combat without hope and weakness of the superhuman hero against inflexible Destiny—his destiny, and the world’s—replayed itself there, undoubtedly for the last time.

The next time it won’t be giants or demigods, but miserable dwarfs who will suffer the inevitable destruction: billions of dwarves, banal in their ugliness, without character, who will disappear before the Avenger like an anthill destroyed by a lava flow.

In any case, whether or not we survive the painful childbirth of the new cycle, we won’t be among these dwarfs. The ordeal of 1945 and especially of the post-war years—the victoriously overcome ordeal of seductive prosperity—will have made us, the few, what we are and what we remain. And in the roar of unleashed power that will mark the end of all that we so cordially despise, we shall greet with a shiver of ecstasy the Voice of divine revenge, whose triumph will be ours—even if we must perish.

Better that, a hundred times, than participation in universal degeneration under a glorious security (but increasingly devoid of all meaning!) which would undoubtedly have been our lot, if the victorious Reich had survived the ‘twenty-fifth hour’.

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 83

The leaders who have led, or will lead, some phase of the eternal struggle ‘against Time’ after the limit point where a last great recovery would still have been possible—after what Virgil Ghéorghiou calls ‘the twenty-fifth hour’—, haven’t been able and won’t be able to leave behind them anything in this visible and tangible world, except a handful of clandestine disciples.

And these have, and will have, nothing to look forward to—except the coming of Kalki; or the Saoshyant of the Zoroastrians, the Maitreya Buddha of the Buddhists, the glorious fighting Christ as expected by the Christians at his ‘second coming’,[1] the Mahdi of the Mohammedans, the immortal Emperor of the Germans surging forth, armed, from his enigmatic Cave at the head of his avenging Knights. He who returns for the last time in our cycle has many names. But He is the same under all of them.

Now He is known by His action, that is, by His victory over all, followed by the dazzling dawn of the next cycle: the new Satya Yuga, or Age of Truth.

The defeat in this world of a Leader who fought against universal decadence, and therefore against the very meaning of Time, is enough to prove that this Leader, however great he may have been, was not Him. He may well have been Him in essence: the eternal Saviour, not of ‘man’ but of Life who ‘returns’ innumerable times. But he was certainly not Him, in the ultimate form in which He must reappear at the end of every cycle.

Adolf Hitler was not Kalki, though he was, essentially speaking, the same as the ancient Rama Chandra, or the historical Krishna, or Siegfried, or the Prophet Mohammed, the Leader of a true ‘holy war’ (i.e., of a ceaseless struggle against the Forces of disintegration; against the Forces of the abyss). He was, like every great Fighter against the current of Time, a Forerunner of Kalki. He was, still in essence, the Emperor of the Cave. With him the latter reappeared, intensely awake and in arms, as he had reappeared before in the person of various great German leaders, especially Frederick II of Prussia, whom Adolf Hitler so revered. But this was not his last and final reappearance in this cycle.

In both cases he had awakened to the sound of the distress of his people. Carried away by the enthusiasm of the action, he had, with his faithful barons, dashed a few steps out of the cave.

Then he returned to the shadows, the Omniscient Ravens having told him that it was, despite impressive signs, ‘not yet the time’.

Frederick II founded the Old Prussian Lodges, through which the more-than-human truth was to continue to be passed on to a few generations of initiates after him. Adolf Hitler left his admirable Testament, in which he too exhorts the best to keep their blood pure, to resist the invasion of error and lies—of the counter-Tradition—and to wait.

He knew that the ‘twenty-fifth hour’ had come, and long ago. At the age of sixteen, as I have already mentioned, he had a premonition of his own materially useless but necessary struggle.

As a German, as an Aryan, a man conscious of the excellence of the Aryan race, although he was an integral part of it, he was eager to defeat the world arrayed against him and his people. He was striving with all his strength, with all his genius, for the building of a superior and lasting society, a visible reflection of the cosmic order, the Reich of his dreams.

And he was striving against all hope, against all reason, in an inordinate effort to stop at all costs the levelling, the dumbing down, the disfigurement of the most beautiful and gifted variety of men; to prevent forever its reduction to the state of a mass without race and character. And he struggled, with all the bitterness of an artist, against the shameless destruction of the living and beautiful natural environment, in which he rightly saw an increasingly patent sign of the imminent victory of the Forces of disintegration.

His irrational confidence in an in extremis salvation using the ‘secret weapon’; his feverish expectation, under burning Berlin, of the entry into action of ‘General Wenck’s army’, which had long since ceased to exist, are reminiscent, in dramatic absurdity, whatever Christians may think, of Christ’s attitude in Gethsemane, praying that the chalice of suffering, which he had come to drink to the dregs, might be removed from his lips.

Adolf Hitler—since he was a combatant against Time, whose kingdom, if it belonged to the eternal, was also ‘of this world’—clung to the illusion of total victory and, despite everything, of an immediate recovery to the end. He clung to it, I repeat, as a German and as a man. As an insider, he knew that this was an illusion, that it was ‘too late’ already in 1920. He had seen it, on that extraordinary night on top of Freienberg in 1905. And the real leaders of the ‘Black Order’—in particular those of the Ahnenerbe, aware as he was of the inevitability of the cycle that was nearing its end—were already preparing, before 1945, the clandestine survival of the essential, beyond the collapse of National Socialist Germany.

And we who follow them and him also know that there will never be a Hitlerian civilisation.

No, hope no more to see us again,
Sacred walls that could not preserve my Hector.

I remember this verse that Racine puts in the mouth of Andromache, in scene IV of the first act of his tragedy of that name. And I think that the grandiose parades to the rhythm of the Horst Wessel Lied, under the folds of the red, white and black swastika standard, and all that glory that was the Third German Reich, the nucleus of a pan-Aryan Empire, are as irrevocably past as the splendours of prestigious Troy; as ‘past’ and as immortal, because one day Legend will recreate them, when epic poetry is again a collective need.

He who returns from age to age, both destroyer and preserver, will appear again at the very end of your cycle, to open to the best the Golden Age of the next cycle. As I have recalled in these pages, Adolf Hitler was waiting for it. He said to Hans Grimm in 1928: ‘I know that I am not the One who is to come’, that is, the last and only fully victorious Man against Time of our cycle. ‘I only take on the most urgent task of preparation (die dringlichste Vorarbeit), for there is no one to do it’.

One incommensurably harder than he will accomplish the final task—the task of rectification—on the ruins of a humanity that believed all was permitted because it is endowed with a brain capable of calculations, and which largely deserved its fall and its loss.


[1] The Deuteria Parousia spoken of by the Greek Orthodox Church.

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 78

I have always, however, been pleasantly struck by the understanding I have encountered, as a Hitlerite, among orthodox Hindus of all castes.

I related at the beginning of these talks the episode of the young Shudra, with the beautiful historical name of Khudiram, who showed more sense of true values—and a more accurate appreciation of Adolf Hitler’s role—than all the Democrats of Europe and America put together. I have also quoted Satyananda Swami, the founder of the Hindu Mission, for whom, however, the creation of a common Hindu front against the clutches of Islam, Christian missionaries, and Communism, counted even more than strict observance of orthodoxy. The latter held our Führer to be ‘incarnation of Vishnu—the only one in the West’.

I could, on this subject, multiply my recollections and recall for example that admirable Brahmin of Poona, Pandit Rajwadé, so versed in the work of Nietzsche as in the sacred texts (which he commented on, twice a week, before a narrow circle of disciples) and who professed the deepest admiration for ‘the chakravarti king [universal ruler] of Europe’ who had come to ‘re-establish the true order’ in a world adrift. I could relate the words of another unusual man—less literate perhaps, but gifted with a strange power of clairvoyance—whom I met at the beginning of the war in a friendly family, of which he was the guru or spiritual master. This wise man said to me: ‘Your Führer can only be victorious because the gods themselves dictate his strategy. Every night he divides himself into two and comes here to the Himalayas to receive instructions’.

I wondered what Adolf Hitler would have thought of this unexpected explanation of the German army’s victories. I then said to the holy man:

‘It is, in this case, unquestionable that he will win the war.’

‘No’ he replied, ‘for there will come a time when his generals will reject his divine inspiration and disobey him—will betray him!’

And he added: ‘It cannot be otherwise; if he is an Incarnation, he is not the supreme Incarnation—the last of this cycle’—Alas!

(City of joy: Calcutta by Samir Barman.) But that’s not all. How could I forget the atmosphere of the orthodox Hindu families with whom I am most familiar? That, for instance, of the house of one of my brothers-in-law, then still living, and a physician at Medinipur, [1] with whom I was staying during the Norwegian and early French campaigns? They all enthusiastically accepted my suggestion to go to the temple of the Goddess Kali—to the ‘House of Kali’ as we say in Bengali—to give thanks to the One who both blesses and kills for the triumphal advance of the soldiers of great German Reich.

We went in procession, carrying offerings of rice, sugar, flour, fruit, garlands of scarlet flowers—in the absence of the bloody sacrifice which the family rejected as much as I did. I can still see myself, surrounded by young people who were also proud of their Aryan ancestry, standing before the terrible Image with the curved sword. Inhaling the smoke of the incense, lulled by the haunting musicality of Sanskrit liturgical formulas, I sometimes closed my eyes to better see in my mind’s eye, like a grandiose fresco, the parade of German armoured vehicles along the roads of Europe.

I lived intensely my role as a link between the oldest living Aryan civilisation in the East and this Aryan West that Adolf Hitler was conquering to return it to itself and regenerate it. Then I looked at my nephews and nieces, and the young Brahmins, their neighbours and fellow students, who had accompanied me. And I dreamed of the day when I would finally see the new Emperor—the eternal Emperor—of the Twilight Lands [Abendland = West], awake and rising from his mysterious cave, and when, greeting him with my outstretched arm, I would say to him, ‘Mein Führer, I bring you the allegiance of the elite of India!’

It didn’t seem an impossible dream then…

How could I forget the general joy in Calcutta—and no doubt in the rest of the peninsula too—at the news of Adolf Hitler’s troops entering Paris or, some twenty months later, at the announcement of the lightning advance of our allies the Japanese to the Assam border and beyond?

The kids themselves, newspaper sellers, their faces radiant, triumphantly threw to the public the names of the captured cities—every news day: Kuala Lumpur, Singapore, Rangoon, Mandalay, Akyab, Imphal in Indian territory—one after the other. The colonial government had banned listening to German radio. People who could hear German were listening to it illegally.

I know Hindus who listened to it without understanding a word just to hear the voice of the Führer. They felt that the One who spoke to the Aryan world in an ‘Indo-European’ language unknown to them was also speaking to them—at least to the racial elite of their continent.

______ 卐 ______

Editor’s note:

Compare this holy euphoria with the way the Americans and the British people reacted to Hitler’s divine voice! Compare it with the red letters in our very long post yesterday (‘American racial history timeline—Or—On Jared Taylor’s cherries’)!

It needs to be said a million times until it is understood: Christianity fried the brains of the Aryan man to the extent that, after WW2, the Aryan man handed over their Abendland to the Jews!

To save the white race from the anti-White war of extermination that the entire Abendland is suffering, it is an absolute categorical imperative to repudiate, with all our being, the accursed religion of our imbecilic parents.

If the Aryans of India had conquered Abendland with their religion, during WW2 Westerners, including the American and English people, would have been as euphoric at the German advance in Europe, and beyond, as these children untainted with a lethal Semitic-Christian poison.


[1] Still often written as Midnapore: a city in West Bengal.

Published in: on February 23, 2022 at 2:09 pm  Comments Off on Reflections of an Aryan woman, 78  

Bleeding Germany dry, 5

Rose Mularczyk reported on a massacre in Gross-Kikinda in North Banat which was perpetrated on 3 November 1944 under the leadership of ‘Commandant’ Dusan 0PAÈAE in a dairy warehouse:

First the men were stripped naked and forced to lie down on the floor. Then their hands were tied behind their backs. Then they were horribly beaten with bullwhips. After this torture their tormentors began cutting strips of living flesh from their backs. Others had their noses, tongues, ears and genitals cut off. Then their eyes were gouged out, and in the meantime the floggings continued.[1]

Such beastly mutilations were by no means exceptional. In Kubin, Germans were hacked and sawed to pieces, then burned alive. An eye witness reported that Hilde Kucht, the leader of a women’s association, ‘had her breasts cut open and pieces of flesh cut out of the lower abdomen while alive, and that several other persons were tied together in a group, smeared with tar, set afire and the corpses were burnt to a cinder’.[2] This for the time being is more or less the foretaste of ‘liberation’ of the ethnic Germans (Volksdeutsche).

In fact, during the war all the Allies committed crimes that have never been acknowledged as such, let alone atoned for. On this matter there is enough documented evidence to fill many libraries. We must limit ourselves to just a few examples, primarily atrocities perpetrated on the civilian population.

On 13 February 1945, there were crowding into Dresden, one of the most beautiful and culturally significant cities of Germany and all Europe a half million refugees, besides the normal population of around 600,000. The metropolis, which until this time had been spared bombardment and was declared a hospital-town, had practically no air defence or night fighter planes. At 22:00 hours the first ‘Thunderclap’ occurred, as the Anglo-American bomber units were to call their terror bombing. To begin with, the British bombers of the Royal Air Force opened the attack by dropping high explosive bombs on the inner city. This was followed immediately by 570,000 incendiary stick bombs and 4,500 flame-jet bombs. This bombardment of firebombs created a devastating firestorm, tolling the death-knell for this hospital city dedicated to the arts. Up to this time, there had been relatively little loss of life. Most of the people had managed to find safety in their cellars. When the first attack was over, they came out to discover huge fires in the city. Yet, the British bombers returned—no early warning. Only two-and-a half hours later, at approximately 1.30 hours of the morning of February 14, the second bombing wave arrived. To begin with, 4,500 high explosive or demolition bombs were exploding in rapid secession, causing countless houses to collapse. Thousands of people were trapped and buried alive under steel and concrete.

(The ruins of Dresden, photograph taken in April 1946. While the first wave of attack had transformed the old city into an ocean of flame, the second wave was trying to prevent the fire-fighting operations with demolition bombs, so that of the 1.3 million human beings in the city as many as possible would burn to death.)

Already at that time, the British were guilty of a war crime: They had systematically bombed a city-centre with its civilian population and not, for example, military-strategic objectives or industrial centres. The most important military target was approximately one and a half kilometres away from the wrecked city centre: the main railway station. Tens of thousands of refugees and people bombed out of their homes were congregating here. The railway lines, mostly undamaged, were jammed with hundreds of railway carriages, so that an immense mass of people was now packed in a closely confined area. It was onto these people that the British let rain down primarily firebombs and liquid incendiaries. The station platforms and the immediate vicinity of the station were strewn with dead people, with people dying, with people burning and with human body parts. Tens of thousands who had survived the inferno now sought refuge on the meadows along the Elbe and in the Great Garden (Grossen Garten), where they thought they would be safe after the terrors of the night. But it was now the turn of the Americans, specifically the US Eighth Air Fleet, to finish off these helpless women and children, these defenceless men and old people. Just after fifteen minutes past noon, some 760 bombers dropped, amongst other things, 50,000 incendiary stick bombs on the refugees. After that some 200 fighter-bombers went over to a low-flying ‘hedge hopper’ attack and opened fire with their machine guns on the civilian population.

The Anglo-American bomber units had committed mass murder—yet, they have never been called to account for this. But not only that:

As well as the people, Dresden’s most beautiful and world-famous buildings, parks and gardens were destroyed. These included the Zwinger, Hofkirche, Schloss, Oper, Grünes Gewölbe, Bellevue, italienisches Dörfchen, Landtagsgebäude, Palais Cosel and many others. The Japanische Palais, the largest and most valuable library in all Saxony, was completely gutted. Blockbuster bombs smashed the Brühlsche Terrasse. The Belvedere lay there with gaping holes for windows. The dome of the Frauenkirche collapsed and the tower of the Schloss, as well as the spire of the Sophienkirche, were burnt out. Of the upper part of the Rathausturm (City Hall Tower) there remained just the skeleton.[3]

The three-stage terror thrust against Dresden—there is no other term possible for these bombings—was not at all undertaken because of a military necessity. There was neither industry worth mentioning nor munitions nor military stores in the inner city, the centre of the attack. The fact that the infrastructure was only relatively slightly damaged—of the transportation system only the main railway station was destroyed, while the bridges over the river Elbe remained intact—shows all too clearly that the Anglo-American attack on Dresden was just as senseless, The war was not shortened thereby, as it was a completely unjustifiable act of destruction and genocide.

According to the police report, altogether there had been recovered, up to the 22 March 1945, more than 200,000 dead. This was not to be regarded as the final count, however, because of ongoing rescue work. Later calculations or counts infer a total of up to 400,000 dead. Of the dead bodies recovered, only 35,000 could be identified. From official data, there is merely this relatively small number of dead given as the total of victims to be mourned. It reflects the questionable understanding of the scholarly approach and the attitude towards authentic historiography in the Federal Republic. Seen from the platform of criminal law, it seems not to fall under the more than doubtful interpretation of the law in the sense that here evidently the facts of the case are not ‘disparaging the memory of the dead’.

(Particularly malicious acts: After the bombing attacks, often low flying aircraft would turn their attention onto the survivors. Yet, the Allied terror bombings directed against the German civilian population achieved the very opposite of their intended purpose. The morale of the German people was not shattered by this.)

This type of ethnic cleansing is by no means an exception; rather, it is just a question of transforming into action a precisely worked-out plan for the surface area bombing of German towns, as done by Frederick A. Lindemann, Churchill’s adviser for aerial warfare.[4] The Allies were proceeding according to ‘Plan F’, as it were, as is demonstrated also in the representative example of the destruction of Stettin in August 1944: ‘Plan F’ was built around the deliberate targeting of residential areas and historical buildings, after the contemptuous-of-mankind-method ‘we don’t give a damn’. Firstly, they would drop aerial mines and high explosive bombs, followed by canisters of phosphorous. This tactic never fails its hundred per cent deadly effect. In the attempt to save themselves from death by suffocation, the defenceless victims clamber out of their ruined cellars, but once in the open, they are caught by the firestorm and become human torches, writhing and screaming in agony until death finally releases them.[5]

(German civilian victims of Allied bombing raids; weight of bombs dropped: 2,767,000 metric tons!)

In this connection there must also be cited the bombings that were contravening the international laws of warfare as, for example, of these cities Cologne, Ulm, Magdeburg, Aachen, Graz, Kiel, Dortmund, Hamburg, Nuremberg, Klagenfurt, Würzburg, Kassel and Potsdam. There are many more, but particularly smaller towns as, for example, Hanau, Pforzheim, Bingen, Darmstadt, Heilbronn, Villach, Nordhausen, Hildesheim, Freiburg i. Br., Halberstadt, Emden, Frankfurt/Oder that could be listed: towns and cities which had no military usefulness or advantage. These attacks served the exclusive purpose of destroying human life.

The Austrian Maximilian Czesany, historian and expert on aerial warfare, has generously compiled a concise account concerning these terror raids—of the grossest violations of international law as perpetrated by the Anglo-Americans: ‘The way they were conducting their aerial warfare, the USA and Great Britain were violating the rules and standards of the Laws and Customs of War, which they had ratified only decades before, as is shown by the following:

• the general provisions of Laws and Customs of War according to which military clashes must only be directed against combatants, quasi combatants and military objectives, and all means of combat causing unnecessary suffering or damage are forbidden;

• Article 27 of the Hague Convention IV Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land states that: ‘In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes’; Article 46 of the Hague Convention states that ‘the lives of persons, and private property, as well as religious convictions and practice, must be respected’;

• the Geneva Protocol of 1925, which forbids ‘the use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and of all analogous liquids, materials or devices’.[6]

With the Allies’ unrestrained aerial warfare against defenceless civilians, the Anglo-Americans in particular made themselves guilty of genocide, of a war of extermination.

(Nuremberg in 1945. Like most German cities, it is a mass of ruins and debris. Germany was covered in 400 million cubic metres of rubble.)

The Soviets also bear a large part of the guilt for the annihilation of the German people. The deliberate attacks on the refugee columns are to be especially condemned. Soviet submarines and pilots are deserving of the inglorious distinction of having simply shot down tens of thousands of refugees fleeing by land and water. The people that were fleeing became the massive victims of Soviet low-flying attacks, of Soviet tank units and infantry units following; their occupation troops dealt with those who had found temporary refuge within communities. Enemy units were attacking columns of refugees ever more frequently. This occurred, for example, on 12 February 1945, when refugees from the area of Hanswalde in the Heiligenbeil district were crossing the Frische Haff in the direction of Danzig-Gotenhafen. ‘Suddenly Soviet aircraft began bombarding the refugee column. Low-flying aeroplanes dropped bombs on the helpless refugees while strafing them with their armaments. The ice was coloured red with blood after the attacks. People and horses, ripped to shreds, were lying about in the snow, the carts smashed. A scene of horror’.[7]

Naval chaplain Arnold Schumacher describes how in March of 1945 the Soviets bombed to pieces Gotenhafen and Hela, when these places were bursting at the seams with refugees and retreating soldiers. The ferry from Gotenhafen to Oxhöft, where the refugee boats headed to sea, remained in service throughout the evacuation. During the crossing on 25 March, the passengers experienced ‘a terrifying low-flying attack that was repeated again and again. The enemy airmen were amusing themselves by hunting down and killing the people, who were ducking in the grass or clawing into the ground. Oxhöft was filled with thousands of sailors. The Russians had reached the Oxhöfter campaigners and were mercilessly firing their shells and mortar into the solid mass of people, barely able to defend themselves anymore’.

After these attacks, the German Navy accomplished the outstanding achievement of taking to Hela tens of thousands of refugees, without any losses. But here also the Soviet Air Force was flying one concentrated attack after the other, dropping their bombs into the tightly packed mass of people. ‘For me, the bitterest experience of the whole war was that in the final months countless people were killed who were unregistered, and whose deaths, unrecorded. Everywhere in Germany people were waiting with hope in their hearts that their loved ones would someday reappear, but in reality they had been lost at sea or buried in unmarked graves’.[8]

In February 1945, the General Steuben was sunk with the loss of at least 3,000 refugees. On 3 May, in the vicinity of Neustadt (Lubeck Bay), both the Thielbeck and the passenger ship Cap Arcona were destroyed by British Typhoon fighter bombers after several waves of attack—the shipwrecked survivors were fired upon with the aircraft armaments. Both ships had been brought into action for the biggest evacuation in history. Onboard were mostly prisoners from the concentration camp Neuengamme, and amongst them were several former members of the Reichstag who belonged to the SPD as well as the German Communist Party. Between 2,000 and 5,000 persons were drowned in the sea. On 16 April, the overloaded 5,300 register ton freighter Goya was sunk, dragging almost 7,000 wounded soldiers and refugees down to their death. Only 195 people survived.

(On 5 May 1945, ships were still placed in Hela harbour to rescue over 40,000 people from the Soviet Russians. Here, civilians are waiting at the fishing port.)

Karl Beckmann, the on-duty loading officer on board, was on patrol duty when the ship received two hits at 23:56 hours. The ship began to sink rapidly and, after the boilers had exploded, went down into the depth. All this took no more than three to four minutes. Beckmann recalls: ‘According to my estimation, there were several hundred people in the water. Judging by the voices, many were women and children. A chorus of voices was shouting for help; all around me were people cursing, crying and gurgling, as they were sinking. Somewhere, in the expanse of water, someone shot himself while others, who had already drowned, were floating among all the ship’s debris… The chorus of voices was growing fainter, and the cries of the drowning people—the cold and the excitement draining them of the last bit of strength—were weighing terribly heavy upon my train of thought remembering former, happier times, sudden realizations of the many mistakes I had made, and a resolution to change my attitude to life should I somehow survive’.[9]

On 30 January 1945, the hopelessly overfilled 25,000-ton Wilhelm Gustloff was sunk near Stolpmünde by the Soviet submarine S-13. The Wilhelm Gustloff was a former KdF-ship: Kraft Durch Freude, ‘Strength Through Joy’, a popular government programme that built several large cruise ships for German workers during the National Socialist economic miracle of the 1930s. Pressed into service as a refugee transport, the Gustloff was struck with three torpedoes. According to the Deutsche Militärzeitschrift (German Military Magazine), they were drowned in icy waters—the temperature of the water being 2 Celsius, with an air temperature of minus 18C—out of a total of 10,582 people (made up of refugees, severely wounded soldiers, women’s naval auxiliaries and crew members) 9,343 human beings.[10]

(One of the last transports from the island of Hela across the Baltic Sea. By taking the sea route, more than two million people could be saved from the clutches of the Soviets.)

The tragedy of her going down is recalled in the accounts of the few survivors. One of these recalled: ‘Suddenly everything went quiet as the ship went down, taking us with it. I forced my eyes open and saw how my son, then my daughter and then my husband were forced out through the open window. I wanted to scream “Take me with you”, but could not, because water had already filled my mouth. Then I realized that I too was being forced through the window. It was horrible—nothing but water, water everywhere, and no more air in my lungs. I wanted to scream but could not. Slowly I rose higher and higher, until I reached the surface, where I was able to cling to a rescue boat. I was fully conscious all the time. After a long time, when I was no longer able to hold on, I was pulled into the boat. Once inside, I lost consciousness and my body was benumbed with cold. When I came to again, I found myself onboard a Navy ship, where they let me thaw out under a hot shower. After the third attempt of resuscitation, I finally regained consciousness and realized that it had not been a dream, but harsh reality. I had lost my husband and the children’.[11]

For those who had survived the sinking of the ship, that night of terror would remain the worst experience of their lives. A retired district official, Paul M., even goes so far as to state: ‘After that, everything I had to endure in the prisons and concentration camps of the victors was child’s play compared to the going down of the Gustloff. In the most terrible situations the one thought that kept me going was that things were a lot worse on the Wilhelm Gustloff’.[12]

The sinking of the refugee ship Wilhelm Gustloff was the greatest maritime disaster in history. A comparison: In recent times there was a sensation-seeking media marketing of the sinking of the Titanic in 1912, where the number of people that went to their death was 1,513.

Scenes from Franz Wisbar’s 1959 film Nacht fiel über Gotenhafen (Night came down on Gotenhafen) that documented the Gustloff catastrophe from Baltic archives of H. Schön.

As the Red Army ‘liberators’ advanced further into Eastern Germany, the Poles grew more daring with every kilometre. Now it was not just all Germans and ‘collaborators’ who were subjected to atrocities and maltreatment, but also Allied prisoners of war or, rather, foreign workers, especially French, English, Dutch, Flemish people and Walloons. These Western Europeans, but also Ukrainians and members of the Baltic nations, kept almost exclusively close to the side of the fleeing German population. With no consideration for their nationality, these too were robbed, beaten, raped and murdered. In remembrance of these European people let it be emphasized and recorded that these treks fleeing to the West were often accompanied by French prisoners of war and also Belgian, Dutch and French civilian internees, who had been sent to work on the farms in Eastern Germany. They frequently put themselves in front of the German women, children and old people during dive-bombing attacks, and when these were being molested, even giving their lives for these defenceless people. Lieselotte W., who was 16 at the time, reports that when the Soviets arrived in Samland: ‘The Russians came at night, looking for young women and girls and raping them. When the French prisoners of war realized what was going on, they came to our assistance and protected us from the Russians’.[13]

Let us look at a few examples that should verify how strong the solidarity of these people, basically prisoners of war, with the Germans really was. From this fact we can undoubtedly conclude that, in the first place, foreign workers and prisoners of war in National Socialist Germany were treated correctly. Otherwise, they would have gone over to their ‘liberators’ with all flags flying. In the second place, for most of what later was to be blamed on the Germans—murdered prisoners of war and foreign workers— was to be charged to the Communist or, rather, chauvinistic ‘liberators’ from the Soviet Union, Poland and from Czechoslovakia. For example, the village of Weizdorf in the Rastenburg district of East Prussia was taken by Soviet troops on 27 January 1945. During the plundering rampage through the village, the French located there were not spared either. Billeted at an estate, ‘twelve French prisoners had their fingers hacked off to get at the rings. Then they were shot in the neck by the dung-heap outside the horse stable. We were all made to stand there to watch. Then the following persons had the sinews cut in both of their hands with bayonets and razor blades’.[14]

The killing of non-Germans by the Red Army was not an altogether rare occurrence. In the East Prussian village of Nemmersdorf not only did almost all of the German population fall victim to the murderous Soviet frenzy, but also fifty French prisoners of war. They were all shot by the Soviets. And Friederike Scharwies, a farmer’s wife from Labau, also has very positive memories of the French prisoners without exceptions. They were ‘full of human pity and compassion for the terrible plight and misery of the Germans’. Frau Scharwies describes an instance of the chivalrous conduct of the French workers toward German girls, who had been physically and sexually maltreated: ¡’A young woman, about 35 years old, was led in, her eyes cast down very low. After a long time, she finally raises her head and looks about helplessly, like a crippled deer. Suddenly she calls out a name; straight away a French man jumps up and catches her in his arms, as she weakly sinks to the ground. I myself am also at pains, so to speak, to comfort the martyred girl. Other French men get off their bench and she is laid down’.[15]

When Danzig fell to the Soviets, a great many foreign nationals, especially Dutch, were kept in concentration camps along with the Germans, where they too were completely at the mercy of the invaders.[16] Many of the Western European prisoners of war and foreign workers, while trying to escape their Soviet ‘liberators’, were robbed, tortured and murdered, just like the Germans. They too were stripped of their boots and warm clothing, and even had their gold teeth brutally knocked out.[17] There are many documented incidents of French men being slaughtered alongside the Germans. In one barn in the Labiau district, around thirty French workers were shot when they refused to hand over their last possessions to the Soviets.[18]

In completion of this part, it must also be stated that, in general, most of the American soldiers in the Sudetenland were behaving humanely concerning the German people, often protecting them from the violations of the Czechs. How they differed from their comrades in West and Central Germany! There are tens of thousands of documented cases of atrocities and violations of international law committed by the democratic Allies against German soldiers and civilians. Among other things field dressing stations, ambulances and hospitals, all with clear recognizable identification markings, were shot at and bombed by the Americans. During ground attacks, the Americans were forcing human shields of German civilians and prisoners of war to be put in front of their troops, even tying the German men to their tanks. German soldiers who had already surrendered or were wounded, were systematically murdered. This would also apply to the transports of prisoners of war as, for example, those sent to Canada or the US.[19]

During the ‘liberation’ by the Western Allies there were mass rapes of German women and girls, often by American Negroes and French colonial troops. Plundering was the order of the day. Women and old men working in the fields, as well as children playing in the street, were routinely targeted by American, English, Canadian and French aircraft. Especially in France, street mobs stoned, clubbed and stabbed German prisoners of war and robbed them of everything they owned. During so-called interrogations, German prisoners of war were regularly subjected to torture and other crimes forbidden by international law. The Americans, British and French were equals in every way in this respect.

(Before capitulation of the Wehrmacht, the invasion of defeated Germany by the Western Allies was distinguished from that of the Red Army only by the extent of the perpetrated crimes.)

In this regard, the orders of the 4th English Tank Brigade in North Africa for handling prisoners of war are very informative: ‘The interrogation of prisoners of war is an extremely valuable source of information, especially when the questioning occurs while the prisoner is still shaken, and not yet in full possession of his mental faculties. The prisoners of war must not be allowed food, drink, sleep or any comfort or favour. Further, any conversation with the relevant section before the actual interrogation is strictly forbidden. Any action of comradeship, such as offering a cigarette, would create an impression of weakness in the Germans, and would destroy the prospect for a successful interrogation’.[20]

Thus, in testimonies of former German prisoners of war, one repeatedly comes across reports such as: ‘They put us in cattle trucks. Then civilians began to climb up on the outside and spat into the trucks. This also happened in the truck where I was. During the whole trip we were given hardly anything to drink, just one pitcher of wine on one occasion, and very little to eat. We were not given any opportunity to go to the lavatory. With beakers we would catch rainwater from the roof gutter and satisfy our thirst that way’ (France).

‘Whenever we tried to open the hatches at any stop, the guards would poke their bayonets inside. When asking to go to the lavatory, Lt. Sommer would yell: ‘Don’t eat anything and you won’t need to shit, don’t drink anything and you won’t need to piss’ (France).

‘We sucked hard at cracks in the walls to get air, and no one spoke a word, just to have the barest minimum of air supply come in. I myself and three comrades came near dying for lack of air. The hatches were closed every evening around five o’clock and not opened again until nine o’clock next morning’ (North Africa).

‘I refused to give any information and Lt. Ludwig struck me in the face with his whip, which knocked out one of my teeth and left my lip bleeding’ (France).

‘Because the work quota could not be attained, several randomly selected individuals were brought out. These were made to strip naked and then: flogged by French non-commissioned officers (NCOs) with riding whips, put on half rations and thrown in the so-called dog kennel. This was a barbed-wire enclosure or pen, of one and a half metre long and about two metres wide and covered over with barbed wire’ (North Africa).

‘The Gaullist commandant of Oudna camp, southwest of Tunis, allowed the German prisoners of war only insufficient nourishment for their exhausting labour. The supplementary rations, promised for hard labour, were not issued. In addition to malaria, typhus and dysentery, severe malnutrition soon became evident. When, as a result of such abuse, the German prisoners of war would attempt to escape, after recapture, they would be placed in the so-called bunker. This meant that the prisoner was forced to dig a hole that was just long enough for him to lie down in it. He was forced to remain in the hole eight to fourteen days under close guard, on bread and water, most often without protection against the cold of the night’ (North Africa).

‘In the British transit camp of Bone, the German medical orderlies were forced, for the most part, to sleep in the open at night, as there were not enough English tents available. The food ratio was inadequate and the water ratio was catastrophic. Once every three days they received just one and a half litres of water, although the daytime temperatures reached sixty degrees centigrade’ (North Africa).

‘The detention cells were heavily barred and extremely dirty. There was only one latrine, which was also used by the Canadian guards. These people obviously were not familiar with the use of latrines, since they constantly covered the seats with excrement’ (Canada).

‘The heat was stifling in the tents. In the larger tents, thirty to forty severely wounded men had to lie close together, while the temperature inside was fifty-five to sixty degrees centigrade. The lightly wounded were packed in up to sixty men per tent. Given such cramped spaces and such temperatures, there was a constant stench of festering matter and also the plague of vermin’ (North Africa).

‘As a form of punishment, the whole camp had to be cleared one day, and around a hundred American military police were called in. The Germans were driven out of the main cage into the anteroom and the tents searched. All the wood was smashed and personal objects such as photographs and keepsakes were smashed and trampled on. The Americans were wreaking the most dreadful havoc’ (France).

‘This American clubbed the surviving Germans to death with the rifle butt’ (Italy).

(In France, after the capitulation of Paris, many German soldiers were severely mistreated by French Partisans.)

It has been proven beyond doubt that officers and guard personnel of the democratic states most brutally violated the Hague Regulations on Land Warfare as well as the Geneva Convention, which had been established and formulated for the protection of the sick and the wounded, of prisoners and the civilian population, and to which these states had put their signature. It happened very frequently that German soldiers, who had surrendered and had laid down their arms, were murdered by the ‘liberators’. For instance, in the Lower Silesian town of Neuhammer, when German anti-aircraft units, along with other artillery and armoured tank units that had already surrendered to the Soviets, they were shot to the last man while the residents were forced to watch the shootings.[21] In Czechoslovakia it happened frequently that German soldiers, who had surrendered, were nailed to trees and then used as targets by the Czech partisans. Eye witness Walter Pachmann reports that several months after the ceasefire, German soldiers and airmen were still being murdered in beastly fashion near Prague. They were made to dig their graves and mix reinforced concrete. ‘Then they had to climb down into the graves, and we had to fill them with concrete up to the soldier’s knees. Then we had to get iron bars and stick them around the soldiers in the fresh concrete. Then we filled the hole with concrete up to the soldiers’ chest. After the soldiers had stood like that for a day, they would be blown up, before our eyes’.[22]

(One of the first photographs documenting Soviet war crimes. On 21 August 1941, the Red Army in Kingisepp [Luga] murdered and then mutilated the German soldiers that had been taken prisoner. The soldier, who had taken the photograph, saved it through war and imprisonment!)

Oberleutnant Paul Böttcher, a holder of the Knight’s Cross (Ritterkreuzträger), describes the illegal, under international law, the conduct of the Soviets in sick-bays in East Prussia and gives us, as an example, the military hospital in Heilsberg: ‘When the Russians arrived at the military hospital on 30 January 1945, they behaved like wild beasts. They went from bed to bed with pistols drawn, looking for officers, Vlassov soldiers and members of the SS. They shot these Russians in their beds and took everything from the wounded. Nurses and other young women, who were seeking refuge in the military hospital, were thrown onto the tables, had their clothes ripped off and were raped by the Soviets in front of the wounded soldiers. Each one of these poor girls had to suffer ten to twenty Russians. The girls were screaming horribly. After the criminal and inhuman action, the Russians would kick each girl in the stomach’.[23]

Hauptmann Hermann Sommer, on the staff of the fortress commander and Wehrmacht headquarters in Konigsberg, reported that the identification of the corpses was very difficult, ‘because the Russians had poured petrol over the piles of bodies in an attempt to burn them. However, several hundred corpses could still be photographed, and these photos are recording facts of the matter, recalling the most gruesomely violent way to die. These pictures and the reports from the criminal investigation officers emphasize the point that most of the bodies showed injuries caused by cuts and heavy blows. Only a few had simple gunshots to the back of the neck. On a considerable number of women, the breasts had been torn off, the genitals lacerated with knives and abdomens slit open’.[24]

(Historians such as Franz W. Seidler carried out excellent educational work on war atrocities committed by the Red Army in Verbrechen an der Wehrmacht und Kriegsgreuel der Roten Armee [Crimes Committed Against the Wehrmacht and Other Atrocities of the Red Army], documenting 500 cases with written descriptions and photographs. Right, when the Soviets recaptured the city of Feodosia in Crimea on 29 December 1941, some 160 wounded German soldiers lying in the field were murdered with bestial brutality. This is one of the victims.)

It soon became evident, once the German Wehrmacht had retaken villages in Eastern Germany, what was to await the German population when taken ‘under the wings’ of the Soviets. For example, the East Prussian village of Nemmersdorf was once more liberated (truly) after 24 hours. This short period was time enough for the Red Army to carry out a horrific bloodbath among the civilian population. A member of the Volkssturm (home guard) reported that many women were stripped naked, in crucified posture were nailed through their hands on barn doors and then brutishly raped. Little children and the elderly had their skulls smashed in, and the inhabitants of the village in general were horribly mutilated and disfigured. ‘On the sofa in one room, still in sitting position, we found an eighty-four years old woman who was blind and was already dead. This dead person had half a head missing, apparently hacked away from the neck, from the top down, with an axe or a spade’.[25]

(One of many documented cases of cannibalism: German prisoners of war, having died a gruesome death, are mutilated and disembowelled.)

These accounts are not all about National Socialist propaganda. These aforementioned violations of international law (Law of Nations) have been, as similarly done at the time for the investigation of the Soviet crimes in Katyn, investigated and documented by an international commission and a delegation of neutral journalists from Switzerland, Sweden, Spain and France. The circumstances in the East Prussian garden town of Metgethen were very similar. On 19 February 1945, combined Wehrmacht and Hitler Youth forces freed the town from the Soviet Rifle Regiment 950, under the command of Oberstleutnant (Lieutenant Colonel) Subzenko, and from the 262 Rifle Division commanded by Generalmajor (Major General) Usachev. There were horrendous sights here too, bearing witness to the incomprehensibly brutal conduct of the Red Army: ‘ln almost every room lay a woman half-naked, or completely naked, in the same position in which she had been raped.

(The East Prussian village of Nemmersdorf in the Gumbinnen district was one of the first German villages conquered by the Red Army, 20 October 1944. Soon afterwards, it was retaken by German troops, and indescribable atrocities of the Soviets came to light. Just as in Nemmersdorf, so did the de-humanized Soviet bands of soldiers wreak their frenzied havoc in other places such as Metgethen near Königsberg.)

Beside most mothers lay two or three children, likewise murdered in bestial fashion. Many of the dead children were still the age of nursing infants. Many of the women and girls lay in pools of congealed blood, which had run out of their genitals. According to the diagnoses made of the 8- to 12-year-old girls, the genitals had been ripped open, and then they were raped. On all the dead bodies were found many cuts made by bayonets and many rifle bullets’.[26]

Given the bestial cruelty of the ‘liberators from the East’ it seems reasonable to suspect that political calculation was behind the atrocities perpetrated on the Germans. Such was indeed the case. Wilfried Ahrens, a publicist dealing with the crimes associated with the expulsions, rightly came to the conclusion that the deliberate acts of brutality committed on the German civilian population were the opening act of a deliberate policy—calculated from the outset—of driving the Germans out from the land.[27] The Germans living in the areas that were to be annexed had to be driven into a panic-stricken stampede and, what is more, this was done with the callous calculation. Those who fled no longer need to be driven out; the territory is thus deserted and, therefore, is now freely available.

One of the young victims of Metgethen, typical of thousands,
and representative of the bestial behaviour of the Soviets.


[1] Arbeitskreis Dokumentation (Ed.), Verbrechen an den Deutschen in Jugoslawien 1944-1948. Die Stationen eines Völkermords (English edition: Genocide of the Ethnic Germans in Yugoslavia 1944-1948, Documentation Project Committee, München 2006, p. 60), 2nd edition, Munich, Donauschwäbische Kulturstiftung, 1998, p. 103.
[2] Ibid., p. 105 (Engl. ed. p. 57).
[3] Maximilian Czesany, ‘Die Feuerstürme von Dresden und Tokio’ (The Firestorms of Dresden and Tokyo), in Deutsche Monatshefte, Vol. 2/ 1985, p. 38.
[4] Erich Kern, Von Versailles nach Nürnberg. Der Opfergang des deutschen Volkes (From Versailles to Nuremberg. The Martyrdom of the German Nation), 3rd edition, Preussisch Oldendorf, Schutz, 1971, pp. 417.
[5] Ilse Gudden-Lüddeke, Recht auf Heimat niemals aufgeben (Never Give up the Right to the Homeland), in Pommersche Zeitung, 5 August 1995, p. 1.
[6] Maximilian Czesany, op. cit., p. 40.
[7] Ost-Dok. Vol. 2, No.7, p. 85.
[8] Ost-Dok. Vol. 2, No. 48, pp. 6.
[9] Ost-Dok. Vol. 2, No. 48, p. 2.
[10] Heinz Schön, ‘Die Fahrt in die Katastrophe’ (Journey Into Catastrophe), in Deutsche Militärzeitschrift , No. 24/2001, p. 67.
[11] Ost-Dok. Vol. 2, No. 44, p. 197.
[12] Ost-Dok. Vol. 2, No. 2, p. 80.
[13] Ost-Dok. Vol. 2, No. 21, p. 1074.
[14] Ost-Dok. Vol. 2, No. 36, pp. 48.
[15] Ost-Dok. Vol. 2, No. 23, p. 237.
[16] Ost-Dok. Vol. 2, No. 44, p. 174.
[17] Ost-Dok. Vol. 2, No. 23, p. 238.
[18] Ost-Dok. Vol. 2, No. 23, p. 239.
[19] See in particular Erich Kern & Karl Balzer, Alliierte Verbrechen an Deutschen. Die verschwiegenen Opfer (Allied Atrocities Committed Against Germans: The Hidden Victims), 2nd edition, Preußisch Oldendorf, Schütz, 1982.
[20] Ibid., p. 116 and p. 232.
[21] Ost-Dok. Vol. 1, No. 195, p. 165.
[22] Ost-Dok. Vol. 2, No. 243, p. 26.
[23] Ost-Dok. Vol. 2, No. 7, p. 20.
[24] Ost-Dok. Vol. 2, No. 22, p. 155.
[25] Ost-Dok. Vol. 2, No. 21, p. 716.
[26] Ost-Dok. Vol. 2, No. 21, p. 719.
[27] Wilfried Ahrens, Verbrechen an Deutschen. Dokumente der Vertreibung (Atrocities Committed Against Germans. Documents of the expulsion), 3rd edition, Bruckmühl, Ahrens, 1999, p. 25.

The Führer’s monologues (i)

Editor’s note: This site has been promoting Richard Carrier’s work about the dubious historicity of Jesus. But Carrier is a typical neochristian. As Robert Morgan once said, the Christian influence on culture has been so profound that even atheists like Dawkins and Carrier accept the Christian moral framework without question. Carrier’s liberalism has gone so far that he even subscribes the psychosis en mass that a human being can choose his or her sex, disregarding biology.

Carrier also talks nonsense about Hitler, especially about the Führer’s after-dinner talks. All his rigour as a scholar of 1st-century Mediterranean religions goes out the window when he addresses Hitler’s anti-Christianity. Carrier cheats by deliberately using sloppy English translations instead of the originals (this video featuring David Irving and Richard Weikart explains it briefly).

Here is my hand holding one of the good German editions, Henry Picker’s, which, unlike the popular translations, wasn’t slightly altered. It is time to refute Carrier’s claim that Hitler wasn’t anti-Christian, although in this new translation I will be using another edition also mentioned in the above-linked video, not the book in my hand. However, the editor’s introduction is too long for a single blog post and I’ll have to divide it into parts (i, ii, iii, etc.). If you want to read it all in the original language, you can do so in the German section of this site.

______ 卐 ______


Adolf Hitler

Monologues at the Führer’s Headquarters 1941-1944

– The Records of Heinrich Heim Edited by Werner Jochmann –


Shortly after the beginning of the war against the Soviet Union, Reichsleiter Martin Bormann suggested recording Hitler’s conversations during breaks in the Führer’s headquarters. He was guided by the following considerations: After years of unprecedented restlessness with travels, visits, events, intensive consultations with architects, artists, party leaders, representatives of the state, the economy and the Wehrmacht, and after the major foreign policy actions and the first campaigns of the Second World War, the Supreme Commander of the Wehrmacht was now directing operations against the Red Army with his staff from East Prussia. To preserve for posterity the ideas and conceptions he developed in this seclusion and during the most decisive phase of the war so far, Bormann, as head of the party chancellery, asked his adjutant Heinrich Heim to set them down.

On the way home from a lunch meeting with Hitler at the end of June or beginning of July 1941, Heim reports, Bormann suggested that he ‘try to write down from memory an omission we had just heard. What I submitted to the Reichsleiter seemed to him to miss what he was interested in; he therefore made a transcript himself and submitted it to me; inwardly I held fast to my idea, even if I could not reprove his’. Some of the difficulties that had been encountered in this accidental recording of Hitler’s expositions could be overcome by proceeding according to plan. From then on, Heim concentrated intensively on the course and content of the conversations at the table; as far as possible, he also unobtrusively noted down a few keywords, occasionally even the one or other striking sentence. With the help of these notes, he then immediately dictated his notes of the conversation to one of Bormann’s secretaries. During the nightly teatimes, however, to which only a small and intimate circle was invited, there was no opportunity to record even a single word. Since this intimate circle often remained gathered around Hitler until the first hours of the following day, the record of the course of conversation could only be dictated the next morning.

In his casual chats, Hitler frequently changed the subject. Initially, therefore, an attempt was made to systematically summarise remarks on certain problem areas over several days.[1] However, since this procedure lost the immediacy of the statement and it was also impossible to reconstruct the context in which the remarks were to be placed, it was quickly abandoned. The conversations were recorded in their course and in the order in which they took place. As a rule, Hitler spoke alone, usually choosing topics that moved him at the time. In many cases, however, he evaded the pressing problems by distancing himself from the work of the day, for example, in reports from his school days or the early days of the NSDAP. Not every monologue Heim recorded advances the reader’s political insight. But all of them provide an insight into the everyday life of the Führer’s headquarters and the mentality and lifestyle of Adolf Hitler.

Martin Bormann was soon very satisfied with Heim’s work. He saw a collection of material emerging to which he attached great importance. In a memo to the Party Chancellery in Munich, he wrote on 20 October 1941: ‘Please keep these – later extremely valuable – notes very well. I have finally got Heim to the point where he is taking detailed notes as a basis for these memos. Any transcript that is not quite accurate will be corrected by me once again!’ As far as can be seen, there was little cause for correction. In the record published here, the head of the Party Chancellery added only a few additions, which are marked in the text of the edition. The extent to which individual objections and remarks were already taken into account in the final transcription of the notes cannot be established with certainty. According to Heim’s statements, this was not the case, and the findings in the files also speak against it. For each talk note, an original was made, which Heim revised and corrected once more. An original with two carbon copies was made of the final version. The first, signed by Heim in each case, was taken by Bormann, the carbon copies were kept by the heads of the political and constitutional departments of the party chancellery. Some notes dictated and signed by Bormann himself were added to the collection.

Heim’s notes begin on 5 July 1941, are interrupted on 12 March 1942, then continued again from 1 August to 7 September 1942. During Heim’s absence, his deputy, Oberregierungsrat Dr Henry Picker, prepared the talk notes from 21 March to 31 July 1942. At the beginning of September 1942, a serious crisis occurred at the Führer’s headquarters. Hitler was disappointed by the lack of success of Army Group A in the Caucasus. He heaped reproaches on the Commander-in-Chief, Field Marshal List, and his generals. The Chief of the Wehrmacht Joint Staff, Colonel General Jodl, therefore flew to the Field Marshal’s headquarters to get information about the situation on the fronts of the Army Group. On his return to the Führer’s headquarters on 7 September, he recommended to Hitler a cessation of the attack and a withdrawal of the Mountain Corps, which had been particularly far advanced and weakened by the hard fighting.[2] Hitler reacted angrily and accused Field Marshal List of not following his orders and therefore being responsible for the failure. When Jodl, on the other hand, claimed that the Army Group had strictly followed his instructions and thus indicated that the criticism fell back on Hitler, the rupture was sealed.

The consequence of this serious conflict was that from then on Hitler had the briefings recorded by Reichstag stenographers; did not leave his barracks in daylight for long periods and, in particular, no longer ate with the members of the Führer’s headquarters.[3] To what extent his self-confidence received a severe blow from this event, because he realised that his goals in Russia could no longer be achieved, may remain undiscussed in this context. What is decisive is that Hitler henceforth distrusted his officers and showered them with reproaches that shocked even his closest political confidants.[4] Martin Bormann, too, registered with concern that Hitler was closing himself off more and more from those around him.[5] The transcripts end with the abolition of the common table. If there were still conversations in a relaxed atmosphere afterwards, there was hardly any opportunity to record them. The few notes made in 1943/44 by one of Bormann’s advisers, who also added them to the collection of Führer conversations, are summarised – released for publication – in the fourth part of this volume. A glance at these few documents reveals the change in atmosphere that had taken place since September 1942. Hitler no longer spoke so freely, most questions were only touched on briefly.

Martin Bormann marked his collection of ‘Führer conversations’ as ‘secret’ and sent parts of it to his wife for safekeeping. Gerda Bormann left Obersalzberg on 25 April 1945, after the property had been destroyed in a bombing raid, and took not only her husband’s letters but also the conversation notes with her to South Tyrol. She died there in a prisoner-of-war camp in Merano on 23 March 1946.[6] After the German surrender, an Italian government official in Bolzano took over the entire collection and later sold it to François Genoud in Lausanne, who still owns it. It forms the basis of the present edition.

While Henry Picker has meanwhile repeatedly published his conversation notes from the Führer’s headquarters,[7] Heim’s much more extensive notes have so far only been published in foreign languages. A French edition was produced by François Genoud[8] at the beginning of the 1950s; the English edition, by H. R. Trevor-Roper at the same time. This first English edition was followed by a second in 1973; [9] two American editions identical to the English edition had appeared before that.[10] Since these translations of such a central source are much used by international researchers, it is about time that it is finally made accessible in the original text. This is all the more urgent because specific National Socialist terms and also some of Hitler’s linguistic idiosyncrasies can only be translated imperfectly. Attempts to retranslate his remarks have inevitably led to errors that have been to the detriment of the interpretation.


[1] Cf. Gespräch Nr. 28, S. 74.

[2] Colonel General Haider, Kriegstagebuch Vol. III, edited by Hans-Adolf Jacobsen. Stuttgart 1964, p. 518 f. (8. 9. 1942).

[3] Notizen des Generals Warlimont. Kriegstagebuch des OKW, Vol. 2, 1st half volume. Compiled and explained by Andreas Hillgruber. Frankfurt/Main 1963, S. 697.

[4] Heinrich Hoffmann reports on a conversation with Hitler in late summer or autumn 1942, in which Hitler called his officers ‘a pack of mutineers and cowards’. Hoffmann notes: ‘I was deeply affected by this abrupt outburst of hatred. I had never heard Hitler talk like that before’. Heinrich Hoffmann, Hitler, wie ich ihn sah. Munich-Berlin 1974, page 178.

[5] Bormann in letters to his wife Jochen von Lang, Der Sekretär. Stuttgart 1977, page 230.

[6] Death certificate of the registry office I in Berlin. Cf. Joseph Wulf, Martin Bormann. Gütersloh 1962, page 223.

[7] Henry Picker, Hitlers Tischgespräche im Führerhauptquartier 1941-42 (Hitler’s Table Talks at the Fuehrer’s Headquarters 1941-42), ed. by Gerhard Ritter, Bonn 1951. The second edition was supervised by Percy Ernst Schramm in collaboration with Andreas Hillgruber and Martin Vogt. It appeared in Stuttgart in 1963 and was followed in 1976 by a third new edition edited by Picker himself, published by Seewald-Verlag, Stuttgart. The edition edited by Ritter was published in Milan in 1952 in an Italian translation Conversazioni di Hitler a tavola 1941-1942. Andreas Hillgruber supervised the edition published by Deutscher Taschenbuch-Verlag, Munich, in 1968, and in 1979 Goldmann-Verlag in Munich published a paperback edition edited by Picker.

[8] Adolf Hitler, Libres Propos sur la Guerre et la Paix, recueillis sur l’ordre de Martin Bormann. Paris, 1952 and 1954.

[9] Hitler’s Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations. London 1953 und 1973.

[10] Hitler’s Secret Conversations 1941-1944. New York 1953 and 1961.

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 61

This seems to be all the more true since before the war, the Reichssicherheitshauptamt (RSA) Subgroup IV 134 was itself involved in close cooperation with the Haganah, the underground Zionist organisation, in sending Jews from the Reich to Palestine, which was then under the British Mandate, despite the opposition of the government in London. Thus, in 1938 and the first months of 1939, almost four hundred thousand Jews left German territory, in full agreement with the National Socialist authorities.[1] I am not talking about those who left without being forced to, from 1933 to 1938, or before 1933.

Moreover, the famous Nuremberg Laws of September 1935, which best reflect the spirit of Hitler’s revolution and the purest Aryan racism, while denying Jews (as indeed all non-Aryans) the possibility of acquiring German nationality and forbidding them ‘to fly the German colours or to hoist the national flag of the Reich’, gave them the right ‘to hoist the Jewish colours’. The exercise of this right, it was specified, was ‘placed under the protection of the State’ [2] which clearly proves that at that time, despite their historical role as ‘ferment of decomposition’, Israelites were still considered in National Socialist Germany as foreigners to be distrusted and kept at a distance, but not as ‘vermin’ to be destroyed.

Things would change in 1941 and especially in 1942 and more and more as the Second World War became more relentless, more ‘total’. And this, above all, thanks to those ‘millions of non-Jews, friends of the Jews’, of which Samuel Untermeyer had foreseen, almost ten years before, the benevolent collaboration with his brethren of race in their fight to the death against the Third Reich.

For as early as May 1940, the massive attack by the British air force, deliberately directed against the German civilian population, began. The English general Spaight boasts about it in his book Bombing Vindicated. And the deluge of phosphorus and fire only intensified after the US entered the war, turning entire German cities into infernos night after night. It is estimated that about five million German civilians, women, old men and children, died during these ferocious bombardments: crushed under the smoking rubble or burnt alive in their shelters invaded by the liquid, flaming asphalt that poured in from the molten streets.

The Führer had not, as early as 1933, the day after the ‘declaration of war’ by several of their number in the name of all of them, interned all the Jews in Germany, as he could have done then.[3]

He felt strong enough to be generous, and besides, the light side outweighed the unforgiving side in his psychology. He had let all those who wanted to go—go with their money, which they immediately used to turn world opinion against him and his country. He had done everything, tried everything, to make it easier for them to put down peaceful roots outside the Germanic living space.

But no government had agreed to welcome them en masse into its territory or its colonies. Now it was war. And it was a Jewish war, as they themselves proclaimed to anyone who would listen: a war waged by Aryans, whose (misunderstood) sense of self-interest, narrow and jealous nationalism, and above all that superstition of ‘man’ inherited from both Christianity and Descartes, had been exploited by Jewish propaganda for years, a war against the Germans as ‘enemies of humanity’ and against the National Socialist Weltanschauung as ‘the negation of man’. It was hell unleashed against Germany by the Jews in the name of ‘man’.

______ 卐 ______

Editor’s note: Hell unleashed against Germany by the Jews? It is very difficult for an autobiographer like me, who has analysed his parents for decades, to see the Second World War as a Jewish war. It is obvious that it was a war of Aryans betraying themselves.

When I was a teenager, my mother’s slander against me was horrendous (she had lost her mind). But it was my father’s folie à deux that destroyed me (see details in Letter to mom Medusa, a book whose English translation I advertise on the sidebar). My father was not a simple victim of ill advice, but an active agent in believing everything to his Medusa wife. Since he could have chosen not to let himself be stung by the snakes of her wife’s scalp, but let himself be poisoned for decades, I cannot forgive him, or say that the ‘poor’ Anglo-Americans were victims of ill advice by the Jewish slander against the Germans.

Savitri and today’s anti-Semitic racialists believe the latter in order not to see the evil of their co-ethnics, although Savitri at least blamed Christianity for our misfortune as well. The difference between me and Savitri is that I blame much more anyone who let himself be infected by the Christian ethics regarding the Jewish Holocaust than she blamed. Just remember her words above: ‘thanks to those millions of non-Jews, friends of the Jews, of which Samuel Untermeyer had foreseen…’

Obviously, I am influenced here by the immense tragedy of my life, and how Christianity played a pivotal role in the destruction of my adolescence and my twenties (cf. the fifth book). The tragedy that killed the other two victims of my family (cf. the books about the deceased Corina and Leonora in my autobiography) made me see human nature differently. And it is almost impossible for visitors to understand the point of view of this site without having read From Jesus to Hitler: a new literary genre that I have inaugurated.

______ 卐 ______

No one, of course, except those who ‘live in the eternal’, can claim to know the innermost thoughts of Adolf Hitler. However, it is logical to assume that the hardening of his attitude towards the Jews, which began in 1941 and continued later, was a violent reaction against the superstition of ‘man’ and all the morality that goes with it, in the face of the daily and ever-increasing horror of the ‘phosphorus cleansings’, as their perpetrators, the Anglo-American bombers, called them.[4] If this was the application of the man’s morality, bent on crushing National Socialism by burning alive, women and children included, the people who had acclaimed it and brought it to power, then why hesitate any longer to oppose it, to the very last consequences, the immemorial morality of the Jungle: that of the struggle to the death between incompatible species?

The Führer may not have ordered the massive suppression of Jews, without distinction of sex or age, both in the conquered areas of the East (where they were very often confused with the most dangerous snipers and saboteurs) and in the concentration camps. But he allowed his most radical collaborators to act—such as Goebbels, whom he had severely reprimanded [5] the day after the well-known night of the popular pogrom of 9-10 November 1938, known as Kristallnacht. Heinrich Himmler and Reinhardt Heydrich merely executed the suggested measures, for which the Führer accepted full responsibility.

[1] Brissaud: Hitler et l’Ordre Noir (op. cit.), page 307.

[2] Article 4 of the Third Nuremberg Law.

[3] If, by the mouth of its responsible representatives, any nation declares war on France, will not all the nationals of that nation, domiciled in France, be immediately interned?

[4] Sauvageon, a post-war author, gave this cynical title to one of his novels.

[5] Grimm: Warum? Woher? aber Wohin? (op. cit.), page 84.

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 54

I mentioned above Adolf Hitler’s interest in modern technology—especially, and for good reason, war tec! This is not to say that the dangers of the mechanisation of life, and especially of excessive specialisation, escaped him. Even in this particular field of strategy where he, the former corporal, moved with an ease that even geniuses can hardly explain, he was sceptical of specialists and their inventions, and, in the final analysis, relied only on the supra-rational vision of the true leader without, of course, rejecting the use of any invention as it represented an effective means to victory.

‘What is’, he said to Rauschning, ‘the invention that has so far been able to revolutionise the laws of warfare in a lasting way? Each invention is itself followed, almost immediately, by another which neutralises the effects of the previous one’. And he concluded that all this conferred ‘only a momentary superiority, and the decision to go to war always depends on men’ rather than on material, however important the latter may be.[1]

It was not, therefore, the technique itself that put him off. A universal spirit, he was at ease in this field as in so many others, and he recognised its place in modern combat. What irritated him to the point of revolt was the effect that technical training and the handling of precision equipment and statistical data can have, and almost always do have, on man, even the ‘well-trained’ one who specialises in them. It is the observation that they kill, in him, the flexibility of mind, the creative imagination, the initiative, the clear vision amid a labyrinth of unforeseen difficulties; the faculty of grasping, and of grasping in time—immediately, if possible—the relationship between a new situation and the effective action which must be taken to deal with it; in a word, the exact intuition: according to him, the superior form of the intelligence. ‘It is always outside of technical circles that one meets creative genius’, he said. [2]

And he advised his collaborators—and this all the more strongly as they occupied positions of greater responsibility—to take their decisions ‘by pure intuition’ relying ‘on their instinct’, never on bookish knowledge or on a routine which, in difficult cases, often lags behind the requirements of action. He advised them to ‘simplify the problems’ as he himself simplified them; to ‘make light of everything that is complicated and doctrinaire’.[3] And he kept saying that ‘technicians never have an instinct’, entangled as they are in their theories ‘like spiders in their webs’ and ‘incapable of weaving anything else’.[4] And Hermann Rauschning himself, whose malice towards him is obvious, is forced to agree that ‘this gift of simplification was the characteristic power that ensured Adolf Hitler’s superiority over those around him’.[5]

To prove it, it would be enough to reread, in Léon Degrelle’s Hitler for a Thousand Years, the luminous pages which relate to the French and Russian campaigns, in particular to the latter, about which so many people, and not even those whose job it is to fight wars, reproach the Führer for having stubbornly refused to listen to the technicians of strategy.

The great soldier who was the leader of the Waffen S.S. Wallon Legion brilliantly shows that Adolf Hitler’s refusal to be convinced by these famous specialists who, in the winter of 1941-1942, called for a withdrawal of one or two hundred kilometres, ‘saved the army’ because ‘a general retreat through these endless white and devouring deserts would have been a suicide’.[6] ‘Against his generals, Hitler was right’, he insists, and not only during the seven months of the dreadful Russian winter of 1941-42, but also in January 1943, when he insisted that von Paulus, surrounded at Stalingrad, should try, as best he could, to throw himself towards the armoured troops of General Hoth, under Field Marshal von Manstein, whom he had sent to his rescue and who were only a few kilometres away.

According to Degrelle, von Paulus ‘could have saved his men in forty-eight hours’[7] but ‘a theoretician incapable of working in the field confused by his meticulous mania for paper-based groupings’[8] didn’t do so preferring to capitulate, even though ‘salvation was under his nose, forty-eight kilometres away’.[9] He didn’t do it because, in him, a meticulous study had taken the place of instinct; because he lacked the gift of simplifying problems and of going intuitively to the essential. It was undoubtedly his nature. But these deficiencies must have been singularly reinforced by the fact that ‘almost all his life von Paulus had spent it among the bureaucracy of the general staff’[10] in front of his maps, within the narrow confines of his speciality.

Of course, specialists are needed—in their place. Unfortunately, in certain exceptional circumstances, one is sometimes forced to call on them outside the realm of their routine, and ask them for more than they can give.

And the more life, in all its aspects, becomes mechanised thanks to the applications of science, the more there are and the more there will be from the top to the bottom of the social scale specialised technicians. And fewer and fewer of them will be those who, while having in their particular capacity the maximum of knowledge, will be able to dominate it retaining the vision and inspiration and the invaluable qualities of character, which make the superior man.

The Third Reich had such men: ‘modern’ men in material terms (military or civilian); on the other hand, equal to the greatest figures of the past, like a Guderian, a Skorzeny; a Hans-Ulrich Rudel, a Hanna Reitsch or a Doctor Todt: people strong enough to think and act big while using the machines of our time and subjecting themselves to the precise manipulations they require; the Western counterpart of those Japanese warriors of the same Second World War who combined the intelligent handling of the most modern weapons with fidelity to the code of bushido and, more often than one thinks, the practice of some immemorial spiritual discipline.

The Führer would have liked the best of his Germans to become, more or less, these new ‘masters of fire’ capable of dominating our end of the cycle where technology is, with all its drawbacks, essential to whoever wants to survive in an overpopulated world. He knew that this role could and will only ever be played by a minority. And it is this minority, tested in combat, which was to constitute the warrior aristocracy of the new world: a world against the tide of universal decadence which he dreamed of building and in which, moreover, ‘after victory’ (once the urgency of total war had disappeared) the mechanisation of life would gradually cease and in which the traditional spirit, in the esoteric sense of the word, would take root more and more.


[1] Rauschning, Hitler m’a dit (op. cit.), page 21.

[2] Ibid, page 22.

[3] Ibid, page 209.

[4] Ibid, page 210.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Léon Degrelle, Hitler pour 1000 ans, published by Editions de la Table Ronde in 1969, page 129.

[7] Ibid., page 130.

[8] Ibid., page 174-175.

[10] Ibid., page 170.