The Enemy of Our Enemies Part 2
PART II - ONE EUROPE
There is a modicum of truth in the frowsty verbiage about "One World" that used to excite women's clubs. It has always been obvious that there is only one earth, (1) but although an educated Roman in the first century B.C. could dream of a day when the invincible legions would add even China to the Empire, (2) he could also think of the oecumene, the inhabited part of the globe, as consisting, for all practical purposes, of the Roman Empire and the territories bordering on it. He was secure in the confidence that whatever happened in more distant regions, such as China and India, could have no possible effect on his world, except, perhaps, on the importation of rare luxuries and curiosities.
(1. Since the very foundation of our rational thought is our perception of our place in the universe, it is worthy of note that only in 1978 did it become absolutely certain that the one earth is also unique. Fontenelle's Entretiens sur la pluralit‚ des mondes in 1686 made popular the romantic fancy, which had been entertained speculatively by some Greek philosophers of Antiquity, that there were many planets that were doubtless inhabited by beings like ourselves. With the advance of astronomical knowledge, the possibilities were reduced to two planets in our solar system, Venus and Mars, and it was only when the surfaces of both had been clearly photographed that we knew how terribly alone we are in the universe. Some of our tender-minded contemporaries now console themselves with speculations about hypothetical inhabitants of hypothetical planets that may circle about some stars. Quite aside from the practical considerations that a space-craft, such as landed men on the moon, could not reach the nearest star in less than 700,000 years, this is sheer phantasy. As was concisely stated by the distinguished Australian biologist, Sir John C. Eccles, "there is no evidence that life started more than once" in the entire universe, and "the chances of rational beings existing elsewhere in the universe are so remote as to be out of the question." This fact, as significant in its way as the Copernican revolution, will profoundly affect our whole Weltanschauung in coming decades.)
(2. E.g., Lucan, I. 19.)
The technological achievements of our race, which made us masters of the entire globe until we succumbed to a fit of suicidal mania, did produce, around the beginning of the Nineteenth Century, "one world," in the sense that events anywhere on the planet did affect in some way the interests of the great colonial empires of Britain, France, and Spain and might vitally concern some of the other Aryan nations, such as Germany and the United States. The peoples of other races were merely raw material; they occupied their territories on our sufferance, either because it would not be economically profitable for us to dispossess them or because the reciprocal jealousies of the colonial powers made a war between Aryan nations the price of annexing China or Morocco. And since our race seemed to be healthy, it was only reasonable to foresee that, with our continued progress and expansion, the lower races would, in the course of nature, become extinct. (3)
(3. Charles Darwin to W. Graham, 3 July 1881: "Remember what risk the nations of Europe ran, not so many centuries ago, of being overwhelmed by the Turks, and how ridiculous such an idea now is! The more civilised so-called Caucasian Races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilised races throughout the world.")
Until 1914, no fact was more obvious than that the power-structure of the world, after the decline of Spain, depended on the three great nations of Europe, Britain, France, and Germany, with two outlying states, Russia and the United States, available as auxiliaries to one or the other of the three. It is true that beneath this structure there was a disquieting fact: seventy years before, Benjamin D'Israeli had emphatically warned Europeans that race was the basis of civilization, that "there is only one thing that makes a race, and that is blood," that all the nations of Europe were covertly under the control of the Jews, and that the "destructive principle," which was being used stealthily to undermine our civilization, was "developing entirely under the auspices of the Jews." (4) Only a very few members of our race were sufficiently alert to understand what he had told them in the clearest possible terms. And thirty years before 1914, Friedrich Nietzsche had clearly foreseen that Europe faced "a long series of catastrophes" and "wars such as the world has not yet seen," had perceived that our civilization was suffering from a degenerative disease of both intellect and will, and had identified the deadly infection as a superstition that the Jews had devised and disseminated to poison our minds and souls. (5) Only a few men of philosophical intellect understood him. Not only the masses, of whom rational thought for the future is not to be expected, but almost all of the persons who thought of themselves as an aristocracy or a learned elite were sunk in an euphoric complacency, believing in an effortless and automatic "progress" and the Jewish economic system in which money is the only value of human life.
(4. Coningsby (1844) and Endymion (1880) are novels, but, as D'Israeli (who changed his name to Disraeli) explained in a preface to the former, they are political discourses put into the form which "offered the best chance of influencing public opinion." The same views were expressed in many of his speeches, both in and outside of Parliament. Some persons, notably Douglas Reed in his last and posthumous book, The Controversy of Zion (Durban, South Africa, 1978; available from Liberty Bell Publications), believe that D'Israeli, who professed to be a Christian, was sincerely trying to warn his contemporaries in Britain of the menace that would eventually destroy them. Others note that he always received massive support from the Jews in England and elsewhere, and especially from the Rothschilds when he made his dramatic gesture of buying control of the Suez Canal and then selling it to Great Britain when the British government could raise the money. He may have told the truth about race as a calculated gambit, feeling certain that the British were too stupid to understand. He was not in any sense a defector from his race, which he described as the true "aristocracy of the world," but he courteously told his British hosts that their race could aspire to equality with his. He thus inspired the absurd myth of "British Israel," the preposterous notion that the British (but not other Aryans) were the Israelites of the "Old Testament" and should reunite with their fellow Jews to rule the world. Even those who believe that D'Israeli assimilated, rather than simulated, British culture have to admit that he, who became the Earl of Beaconsfield in the British (!) peerage and Prime Minister to Queen Victoria, opened the way to power for the most vicious of England's resident enemies. See below, pp. 66f., and the analysis of his political activities by Rudolf Craemer, Benjamin Disraeli (Hamburg, 1940).)
(5. Also sprach Zarathustra was published in 1883-84, and Zur Genealogie der Moral, the most incisive of the later works, appeared in 1887. Note that Nietzsche, like all of his contemporaries, took it for granted that the world belonged to the European race, which was menaced only by the rotting of its own moral fibre, not by external enemies. He was, of course, right at that time. For a suggestive discussion of the folly that led to the suicide of Europe, see the work by Luis D¡ez del Corral that is available in H.V. Livermore's excellent translation, The Rape of Europe (London, 1959).)
In 1914, our civilization was worm-eaten at the core, but its brightly glittering surface concealed the corruption within from superficial eyes. It was taken for granted that the globe had become one world, the world of which the Aryan nations were the undisputed masters, while all the lesser races already were, or soon would become, merely the subject inhabitants of their colonial possession. This reasonable conception of the world's unity oddly survived the catastrophes that followed and it conditioned unthinking mentalities to accept the preposterous notions of the current propaganda for "One World," which is couched in endless gabble that is designed to conceal the fact that it is to be a globe under the absolute and ruthless dominion of the Jews--a globe on which our race, if not exterminated, will be the most degraded and abject of all.
The apparent unity of the globe when it was under the dominion of our race depended, as must all rule, on military power, but it was so contentedly accepted by the other races in the various colonies because our power was proof of a biological superiority that was evident in the discipline of our troops and the courage, intelligence, and moral integrity of our men. (6) It was therefore a function of a biological unity that was only belatedly perceived by our people, and even then only by the few men who were able and willing to study the hidden foundations on which the imposing structure of power really rested, notably the Comte de Gobineau and Vacher de Lapouge. The reality of race was generally overlooked because men took the innate superiority of Europeans so for granted that they thought it unnecessary to mention it and instead concentrated their attention on the rivalries and antagonisms that divided the great powers of Europe, assuming that a shift in the balance of power in Europe would automatically be a shift in power over the entire globe. Ignoring D'Israeli's blunt statement that "language and religion do not make a race," men generally thought in geographic terms: Europe was a region with odd prolongations to Canada, Australia, the United States, and other lands possessed by a European people.
(6. General Hilton, in his Imperial Obituary (Devon, Britons, 1968), remarks on the very significant fact that during the Pax Britannica an English gentleman, if he ran short of funds anywhere in the world, could borrow money from a native shopkeeper or man of means without difficulty, since there was never doubt about his absolute integrity and hence the certainty of repayment. When he was in Tibet, a region seldom visited by outsiders, the abbot of a Buddhist monastery unhesitatingly lent him 700 rupees--a large sum for the time and place--although his only security was trust in a British gentleman's honor. General Hilton's analysis of the causes of Great Britain's suicide is one of the most important documents of our time.)
It is not easy to determine when our people first became aware that Europe was inhabited by men who differed generically from the inhabitants of other parts of the world. The perception seems to have evolved slowly from the effective unity of Europe created by the preservation of Latin as the common language of educated men, which, in turn, depended on the religious unity of Western Christianity. A very clear statement of it appears in a discourse by Pope Urban II in 1095, reported by William of Malmsbury. (7) Urban regarded the Germanic peoples of France as a "race chosen and loved by God," but he recognized European unity by saying, in substance: "There are three continents, of which we live in what is by far the smallest, while Asia and Africa are inhabited by our enemies. Even the small part of the world that we possess is under attack by our enemies, who now occupy Spain and the Balearic Isles. We must strike back and subdue them before they destroy us." We, in other words, are Christendom, and it is significant that while Urban recognizes the Byzantines as Christians and asserts the propriety of aiding them against the Turks, he does not think of them as European: they are foreigners who fortunately practice what is much the same religion. In short then, Lawrence Brown is right when, in his Might of the West, he defines the West as composed of the descendants of the peoples who were Catholics in the Middle Ages.
(7. William's Gesta regum Anglorum, written before 1120, was edited by William Stubbs (London, 1887-89). My quotation is a condensed paraphrase of the relevant part of Urban's discourse, which was long and dealt with many other matters. Frederic Duncalf, in his part of Volume I of A History of the Crusades (edited by M.W. Baldwin, University of Wisconsin, 1969), observes (p. 220) that William relied on contemporaries who had heard Urban speak, but he oddly omits mention of Urban's appeal to defend Europe against its enemies by taking the offensive; he concentrates on the strictly religious and economic parts of the speeches by which Urban inspired the First Crusade.)
With negligible exceptions, all the inhabitants of Europe thus defined were Aryans, comprising Nordic, Alpine, and Mediterranean subraces with a slight Dinaric admixture in some places. (8) The leadership throughout Europe (even, e.g., in Italy) was mostly Nordic. The differences between the subraces, although slight when compared to the great differences that distinguish Aryans from all other races, impeded a consciousness of racial unity at a time when Europe was truly international (and, to be exact, there were no nations in the modern sense, the territories being divided according to the rulers who were sovereign within them). The great contribution of the Church was that it transcended all territorial boundaries and gave all educated men a common language and common culture. They could move freely throughout Europe. William of Occam, the great Nominalist, studied at Oxford, taught in Paris, and spent the later part of his life in Pisa. The abbots of Monte Cassino in its great days came from Germany. One could multiply at great length examples of internationalism within Europe during the Middle Ages.
(8. The clearest and most concise exposition of the basic difference between races and subraces that I have seen is Roger Pearson's booklet Race & Civilisation (London, 1966).)
The Renaissance did not diminish, indeed, it strengthened the awareness of the spiritual chasm that divided Europe from the rest of the globe. When the Reformation sundered the continent politically, its cultural unity was maintained by the Respublica litterarum, the European community of educated men who rose above the religious fanaticism of the masses and were largely independent of the various ecclesiastical organizations. They shared a culture based on the great Aryan literature and thought of Antiquity. From Spitzbergen to Palermo, every man who could consider himself literate had at least read Vergil, Horace, and Ovid, Cicero, and Livy, and read Homer, Plutarch, Lucian, and the Planudean anthology in Latin translations, if his education had not been sufficient to make him at home in Greek, while men who could claim to be learned had read far more extensively in both of the learned languages. Latin of Classic quality was the language of scholarship and of international communication until it was partly supplanted by French in the Eighteenth Century. Although original writing in Latin, both prose and verse, and translation into Latin from the modern vernaculars gradually but steadily declined thereafter and has all but ceased today, a knowledge of our race's great classics, read in the original texts, was expected of all educated men before the onset of recrudescent barbarism that followed the First World War; and cultured men of our race remained aware of their common bond.
For this bond there has been no real replacement. When Thomas Arnold, in 1830, asserted that a "happy peace" had "taught every civilized country of Europe" that it was "disgraceful" not to be well acquainted with the languages and literatures of all the others, he meant that educated men must acquire (in addition to competence in Latin and Greek) fluency in French, Italian, German, and English; he not only failed to explain why countries in which Spanish, Portuguese, Norwegian, Swedish, Dutch, etc. were spoken were not civilized, but he proposed an educational standard to which few could attain. Today, English or recognizable imitations of it seems to be becoming a universal language, spoken and written not only our people but also by Asiatics and even some Congoids, thus obfuscating its racial quality, since a Japanese may artificially compose better English than many Germans, who must struggle against the many deceptive similarities between it and their native tongue. In the United States, and to varying degrees in other white nations, literature is no longer taught in any language in the public schools, having been supplanted by contemporary gabble chosen for its virulence as a poison for adolescent minds. The real sciences are not an effective bond since our research and our technology can be successfully imitated and even adopted by Russians, Japanese, Chinese, and Semites, thus producing an illusion of universality that seems to support Jewish propaganda for "One World," in which we are to be but one of the subject races.
After the catastrophe of 1945, our race's fatuity became so great that the bond between once-great Britain and the British overseas in Canada, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand was progressively broken, and Europe has become a merely geographical term. Politically, Europe has become less than it was in the Middle Ages, for treason and lunacy went so far in 1945 as to deliver a large part of it to its Soviet enemies. But nevertheless, the peoples of what remains of Mediaeval Christendom are perforce bound together by a common interest, whether they know it or not, and, as Yockey demonstrated in both Imperium and The Enemy of Europe, they will ineluctably share a common fate. At the very best, no nation of what remains of the old Europe can hope to escape that future, except that some one nation may be given the privilege that the cannibals accorded to the white captain when they promised to eat him last. One hears that the Irish are particularly encouraged by such a prospect.
That some Europeans are aware of the unity thus forced on them is shown by a few small organizations, such as "Jeune Europe" and Nation Europa, which the Jews still tolerate. The only political expression of this unity is the "Common Market," to which most of the European nations, including Britain, have adhered, but that is obviously a device to frustrate an effective unity by opening all the nations to a deadly influx of their racial enemies in the guise of "workers" or "refugees," while forcing Britain into hostility toward the British in Australia and New Zealand and thus applying to those countries economic pressure to facilitate the work of their own traitors, who yearn to submerge the white population in a flood of their Oriental enemies. It is not by any means a coincidence that the "President" of the "European Parliament" is Simone Veil, a Jewess who was gassed and cremated by the awful Germans, but obviously rose from the dead, as God's Race seems able to do on occasion, and is probably still collecting from the Germans for her temporary decease.
The Enemy of Europe presents us with a double problem. To criticize Yockey's work, we must, naturally, consider the situation in 1949, when he published The Proclamation of London, a small booklet in which he anticipated in print part of what he said more fully in the book which he had already written, although it was not published until 1953. (9) To assess the relevance of his work to our plight today, we must naturally take account of all the misfortunes that have come upon us in the past thirty years.
(9. On the circumstances of the publication of The Enemy of Europe, see above, pp. 1f. The Proclamation of London was issued anonymously as a manifesto of the "European Liberation Front," in which Yockey was associated with several patriotic Englishmen, notably Peter Huxley-Blythe, the author of The East Came West (Caldwell, Idaho, 1964), a very important book, which I reviewed in American Opinion, May 1966. What is probably the most trenchant writing attributed to the Liberation Front is a brief article, "The Real Culprit," reprinted in Liberty Bell, March 1981, pp. 53-56. The anonymous author claims to be over seventy years old; neither the style nor the argument is Yockey's, and the article was obviously written after 1970, i.e., at least nine years after his death and twenty years after the Front founded by Yockey disintegrated for a variety of reasons that must be left to his future biographer. It is clear, however, that the programme of his Liberation Front, set forth on the back cover of the Proclamation, was injudiciously candid and not too drastic for the time and place. The integration of Britain into a single sovereign European state was a proposal that startled Britons who remembered that for a time their nation had seemed to stand alone against the continent, and in addition that manifesto called for the "immediate expulsion of all Jews and other parasitic aliens from the soil of Europe," a demand which it would not have been feasible to carry out at once and startling to a nation that had just ruined itself to punish its racial brethren in Germany for insubordination to God's Race, even though the policy of exporting Jews from Europe was entirely in accord with Zionist propaganda for the establishment of a "Jewish homeland," which many naive persons took seriously. The programme of the Front, furthermore, included some economic demands, especially "the abolition of all unearned income," which (at least in the bald statement) contravened the innate instincts of Aryans, who (when not diseased) insist on a man's right to transmit property to his descendants. That demand, which must have seemed Bolshevik to most Englishmen, was exploited by Jewish propaganda that called Yockey a Communist. The Proclamation was reprinted by the Nordland Press in 1970, the editor knew of only three surviving copies of the original booklet. It is now available from Liberty Bell Publications.)
In 1949, what was left of shattered Europe was only beginning to recover from trauma. Everywhere there were grim ruins left by the suicidal insanity that had culminated only four years before, and it would be another decade before the most conspicuous scars of the war were effaced or covered up. The moral damage was greater and more lasting. Men were still appalled and benumbed by the frightful demonstration of how thin and fragile was the veneer of Western civilzation--by the revelation of what treachery, barbarity, and inhumanity the supposedly Anglo-Saxon nations, Britain and the United States, were capable when they ran amok to please the Jews. There were, to be sure, some highly intelligent men who had been able observe objectively the G"tterd„mmerung. Perhaps the most remarkable book that Yockey could have (but, so far as I know, had not) read, since it was published before 1949, was Peter H. Nicoll's Britain's Blunder. (10) It is a book that should encourage everyone who has not despaired of the powers of the Aryan mind, for its author, a singularly courageous Scot, had retained the lucidity and perspicacity of his intellect while living in Britain, where the population had been virtually crazed by the lies injected into their minds for many years by their great War Criminals, in collaboration with the Jews, to pep up the cattle they were stampeding to the slaughter. Although Mr. Nicoll, naturally, did not have access to much information that was then kept secret, he saw the essentials of the disaster with a clarity that still arouses our admiration.
(10. Britain's Blunder was published by its author, s.l.&a. [1948] and copies of it have been made extremely rare; it has been recently reprinted, again s.l.&a., and copies are available from various dealers in books that have not been given the Kosher seal of approval. It is a slender volume of 140 pages, which its valiant author later expanded, with the assistance of the distinguished American historian, Harry Elmer Barnes, to a book of about 600 pages. This, however, is available only in a German translation, Englands Krieg gegen Deutschland (Tbingen, 1963). I assume, but do not know, that the Jews still permit the German publisher (Grabert) to sell copies of the book.)
Another judicious observer of the European catastrophe was Prince Sturdza of Romania, who had the great advantage of being able to view events with relative detachment from his post as Ambassador in Berlin. His sagacious analysis of the plight of Europe, La Bˆte sans nom: enquˆte sur les responsibilit‚s, written in September 1942, was published in 1944 and, of course, before the terrible conclusion of the Jews' Crusade. (11) Although Prince Sturdza wrote before the tragic end, a judicious reader could extrapolate from his analysis of the causes and reach, after 1945, essentially the conclusions that its eminent author set forth in print much later in a book which he, who could write in fluid and lucid French, mistakenly wrote in Romanian, (12) and which is now generally available only in an English translation, drastically censored to please the Jews, that was made and published by the Birch business under the title, The Suicide of Europe. (13)
(11. La Bˆte sans nom was published at Copenhagen (Les Nouvelles ditions Diplomatiques) in 1944 under the pseudonym "Charpeleu" and in an edition of 2000 copies. Copies of it have now been made extremely rare. Prince Sturdza, before going to Berlin as Ambassador, had been Foreign Minister of Romania, a small nation that was necessarily a pawn in the great game for world dominion, but one which, it is possible, was the key pawn that determined subsequent moves on the board. He, a most judicious and dispassionate observer, believes that the coup d'‚tat and murders carried out by King Carol and his Jewish leman in 1938 impelled Hitler to negotiate a "non-aggression" treaty with the Soviet as a desperate expedient to avoid the war that the Jews' stooges in Britain and the United States were working so hard to force on Germany. (See Suicide of Europe, pp. 122-4). Hitler's decision, made on the advice on his General Staff and, no doubt, the infamous traitor, Admiral Canaris, may have been a military blunder, as Prince Sturdza believes; it was certainly a blunder from the standpoint of Hitler's desire to avert a war with England and France, for it made possible for the Jews to generate "world opinion" that National Socialism and Communism were essentially the same thing, and it is extremely doubtful that the War Criminals could have driven the British and Americans to an attack on Germany without the confusion caused by that spurious "alliance.")
(12. R"mania si sfƒrsitul Europei: amintir din tara pierduta (Madrid, 1966).)
(13. Boston (Western Islands), 1968. The translation and publication was subsidized by an American lady, who said she did not know how drastically the text was censored. For a few examples of the censor's alterations, see Warren B. Heath's introduction to the English version of Bacu's The Anti-Humans (Englewood, Colorado, 1971; now available from Liberty Bell Publications).)
The two books I have mentioned represent the best European thought around 1949, which, needless to say, was confined to a few men of extraordinary lucidity and perspicacity, and certainly did not represent the sentiments of the masses of stunned and befuddled victims of the war, whether in England or anywhere on the continent. What immediately concerns us here is the virtual despair of the authors. Nicoll concluded that "the general consequences of the most lamentable and perhaps the most unnecessary war in modern history" were "the destruction of Europe, the ruin of her greatest nation, the enthronement of brutal tyranny" and the "decadence of Britain as a great power," which had become an American base and would be, " in years to come...subjected to the appalling fate to which Hiroshima and Nagasaki were condemned." The instigators of the British attack on Germany had effectively "destroyed the classical Christian civilization of all Europe," and while Nicoll does not deny that there may be some hope of a new civilization to replace what was destroyed, he can see only a vague and tenuous hope for a far distant future. Prince Sturzda's conclusions are stated in the title of his later book: the result of Jewish instigation was simply the Suicide of Europe, which, for all practical purposes, became what India was in the Eighteenth Century when Britain and France were contending for mastery: Europe had become a territory on which would be fought battles to determine whose colony it would become. Such hope as Prince Sturdza permitted himself was that the American people might someday have a government that would act in their own interests.
The contrast between these views and the optimism of the Proclamation is obvious, and the expressed confidence in the proximate formation of an European Imperium must have been an example of wishful thinking. In The Enemy of Europe Yockey is much more realistic. He explicitly recognizes (p. 86) that "since Europe has no power, the question is: How is power to be obtained?" Europe as a whole has only a choice of enemies. Its only chance of regaining power depends on adroit political manoeuvering.
In that sense, the European unity that Yockey recognized is an unalterable fact, whether or not the various European populations know it. It is simply a consequence of the Suicide of Europe and the invention of high-altitude bombers and ballistic missiles. It is a consequence of the British-American innovation of total war against civilian populations. A war, for example, between France and Germany or between Britain and France is now, for all practical purposes, inconceivable, although people talk about an odd anachronism called a 'limited war,' in which both sides agree to use only some of the available weapons and thus, in effect, make the 'war' a kind of sporting contest, a large-scale football game.
Despite much babbling and squawking now fashionable, a 'limited' war can be only border skirmishing or a feint to test an enemy's resolution, a mere preliminary to a real war. (14)
(14. It is true that Western nations at one time observed certain moral restraints in war, but since these were repudiated and abrogated by the British and Americans, it is idle to dream of restoring them in the foreseeable future. See F.J.P. Veale, Advance to Barbarism (2d edition, Appelton, Wisconsin, 1953; 3d edition, New York, 1968). (I have not seen the first edition, published in England in 1948; I probably should have mentioned it when I referred to Nicoll's book above.) -- I need not remark that the 'limited war' in Vietnam was merely a device to kill white Americans, oppress American taxpayers, and further disgrace the United States. It was not in any sense a real war: the eventual defeat of the Americans was agreed on in advance, though probably not in writing. The importation into the United States of a horde of Mongolian enemies as "refugees" was probably not a part of the original plan and seems to have been added only when opportunity offered to afflict the American boobs yet further.)
Given the small extent of their territories and the concentration of their populations, a real war between Britain and France, for example, could be only the equivalent of the situation that was once much debated by theorists of the code of honor, a duel to be fought with pistols at arm's length. At the present time, the only powers that could fight a real war are the United States and the two that it created for the destruction of civilization, Soviet Russia and China.
Yockey, therefore, was right: the nations of Europe can no longer be independent of each other, however unpleasant that fact may be. If either England or France were occupied by a major power, the other would be helpless. And all the nations of Europe, concentrated in a relatively small and densely settled territory between the Soviet and the United States, are equally vulnerable and will necessarily share the same fate. Thus Europe, nolens volens, is a single political entity.
OVERSEAS EUROPE
When Yockey speaks of Europe's colonies, he is thinking of the territories outside Europe inhabited by our race, essentially Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and the United States, of which the latter, in continuing revolt, so to speak, against the mother country, had become its most dangerous enemy. He does not consider separately the future of the others. When Britain attacked Germany in 1939, she was able to count on the whole-hearted support of the English who lived overseas. Everyone knows, of course, that she can no longer do so. If she were attacked today by any nation--the United States, the Soviet, France, Sweden, Ireland--she would find that she had not only kicked South Africa into independence, but has so alienated the three other former dominions that she can hope for no more than a few platitudes in the local newspapers and, if events give an opportunity for them, in kindly obituaries. There is no indication that Yockey foresaw this development.
In 1949, Europe still had extensive possessions overseas. The British not only entertained strange illusions about what they called their Commonwealth and the consequences of their folly in forcing "self-government" on their former subjects of other races, but Britain still possessed very extensive territories in Asia and Africa, and even some in the Western Hemisphere, as crown colonies of which she had not yet been stripped by the traitors in her government. France possessed Indo-China until it was taken from her by American treachery (15) and Communist China, which the Americans had created by stabbing their Chinese allies in the back. France considered Algeria a part of "metropolitan" France. In addition to the numerous minor possessions, she owned Madagascar and half of the Dark Continent north of the British Union of South Africa, while the rest of the territories of the savages were divided between Britain, Belgium, Portugal, and Spain, and the colonies that had been taken from Italy were booty that in a sane world Britain and France would have divided between them. And although the United States had set up a kind of vaudeville show called the "United Nations" to disguise a little its subservience to its enemies in the Soviet and further the subjugation of the American people, there was in 1949 no apparent reason why the European nations, which had not yet realized that they had defeated themselves as catastrophically as they defeated Germany in 1945, should not have retained and ruled their colonial empires.
(15. The nerve center of Communist agitation among the natives was evidently the American embassy, in which inflammatory bulletins urging the natives to get rid of the nasty white men were printed on the embassy's presses. So far as one can determine from the conflicting reports, the Americans promised military aid to the French, should the Chinese invasion become formidable, and then broke their promise at the last minute when the situation at Dienbienphu became critical, thus producing the delightful massacre of the French troops, which had been hopelessly outnumbered by a fresh invasion from China. Americans who dote on Mongoloids naturally reck nothing of the American lives that were squandered in Vietnam, but they should try to calculate the total of all the precious yellow lives that were lost in Annam, Cochin China ("South Vietnam"), Cambodia, Laos, and Tonkin ("North Vietnam") as a direct result of the Americans' racial and diplomatic betrayal of the French to promote lovely "anti-colonialism.")
It is true that in 1949 our race was already showing alarming symptoms of a kind of epidemic lunacy called "anti-colonialism," which was supposedly derived from the prating of a shyster named Woodrow Wilson, whom the Jews had installed as President of the United States in preparation of the First World War. (16) A bigot who had peddled an ostensibly secular theology under the name of "political science," Wilson, when he used the United States to exacerbate the war in Europe and prevent a reasonable peace, had devised a mysticism called "the self-determination of peoples," which, like "theosophy" and "spiritualism," had a great appeal to minds that had been weakened by Christian superstitions. And, oddly enough, Great Britain, which had the most to lose by self-mortification, was the first Western nation to take a morbid pleasure in harming itself. (17) Incidentally, sentimentalists should note that the Western nations that contracted a kind of contagious epilepsy and had masochistic fits in which they forced "self-determination" on their colonies, invariably inflicted great suffering and enormous loss of life on the subjects whom they "liberated."
(16. On the training of Wilson by the Jews, who boasted that their satrap, Baruch, "leading him like [sic] one would a poodle on a string," taught Fido to sit up and bark ideals for political bonbons, see Colonel Curtis B. Dall's F.D.R. (2d ed., Washington, D.C. 1970), especially pp. 134-38. Wilson seems not to have been entirely devoid of conscience, for he is reported to have lamented, "I have ruined my country!" before his mind broke down in 1919, perhaps under the strain of realizing that he, a supreme egotist, had been merely a fantoche in the hands of his masters. His insanity was, of course, concealed from the American boobs, whose government continued to be conducted in his name until 1921. He partly recovered his reason before his death in 1924, but left, so far as is known, no confessions. His election to the presidency in 1912 was, of course, contrived by stimulating the vanity of Theodore Roosevelt and inciting him to form the "Progressive Party" and thus split the Republican vote and punish William Howard Taft for his lack of alacrity in kowtowing to the Jews. As Colonel Dall notes, the Jews laughed over their manipulation of Theodore Roosevelt, their "other candidate" for control of the United States.)
(17. The psychopathology of masochism would require a separate treatise. Such mental alienation in various races, usually as a concomitant of religious mania, but may take a peculiar form in Aryans, beginning with the notion of tapas that appears in India not long after the Aryan conquest and also in the Norse myth of Odin's hanging of himself on the world-tree. The hallucination is, of course, the basis of Christian austerities, appearing in most tales about saints, and particularly conspicuous in Seventeenth-Century Spain, where normally intelligent men had fits in which they lashed their backs with whips weighted with lead until the blood from their excoriated flesh flowed down over their trousers. They imagined that Jesus, if he happened to be watching, would be pleased to see them torture themselves. The same hallucinations are epidemic today in a holy conspiracy called Opus Dei, which was used by "our" C.I.A. to undermine and eventually capture the government of General Franco in Spain, for the members of that Catholic sect regularly torture themselves by wearing sharp-pointed chains next to their flesh and flogging themselves with lead-loaded whips, confident that Jesus will be so pleased that he will assign them specially luxurious quarters in the best apartment house in Heaven and make them members of his own exclusive club. Incredible as it may seem, men who appear outwardly sane secretly indulge in such masochistic perversions. A Catholic Irishman, John Roche, a professor of the History of Science (!) with a doctoral degree from Oxford (!), was bewitched by Opus Dei when he was an undergraduate in an Irish college and acquired an addiction to self-torment that he compared to addiction to narcotics. He did God's Work by torturing himself for fourteen years (and doubtless serving the conspiracy in other ways), and he experienced "withdrawal symptoms" after he came to his senses. See his confession in the Sunday Times (London), 18 January 1981, p. 15. Even now, however, he has not guessed that the godly Opus Dei is partly or entirely financed by the C.I.A.)
In 1949, Great Britain had already begun to destroy herself, and although some mental and moral deficiency in the English must be regarded as the primary cause, it could be argued that the fatal folly was a consequence of the initial blunder that was made when D'Israeli was injected into the British peerage. A Jew named Samuel, who showed his contempt for the English by assuming the illustrious Norman name of Montagu, so enriched himself by his depredations in banking and international finance that his friend, Kind Edward VII, ennobled him with the good Anglo-Saxon name of Baron Swaythling. (Si quid sentiunt Manes, the ghost of the first King Edward, who had tried to run the Jews out of England in 1290, must have gibbered in fury at the act of his namesake.) The "British" Baron's son became Secretary of State for India in 1917 and worked, sometimes slyly, sometimes almost openly, to undermine British rule in India and to arouse among the natives discontent that could be used as a pretext for further sabotage of the Empire. In collaboration with Viscount Chelmsford, who was closely tied by marriage to the Goldmans and may have had Jewish genes himself, and who became Viceroy of India in 1916, "Montagu" prepared in the name of the King's government an official and astounding report on India--astounding because its authors were not attainted for high treason. The crucial section of the long and rambling document is cited by General Hilton in his Imperial Obituary. The report bewailed the deplorable fact that 95% of all the peoples of India were happily content under British rule and hoped for its continuance. It was therefore England's duty, the titled saboteurs said, to "bring about the most radical revolution" in India to enable the 5% of malcontents to terrorize and suppress the "pathetically contented" 95% and thus prepare India for "nationhood," i.e., for perpetual rioting, the venomous racial animosities that always accompany multi-racial societies that are not under foreign rule, large-scale massacres, savage atrocities, and contemptuous hatred of white men.
The work of dismembering the British Empire was carried on by a Jew residing in England, Rufus Isaacs, who was rewarded for his involvement in the malodorous Marconi scandal (18) by being successively created Baron, Viscount Earl, and finally Marquess of Reading, Lord Chief Justice (!) of England, and Viceroy of India, where he made a feint of maintaining British rule while sapping its foundations. (19) His fellow tribesmen ran interference for him in England by a standard ploy, using their increasing control of the English press to publicize shrill protests that he was "brutally" failing to truckle sufficiently to the "aspirations" of babbling babes, whose minds had been stuffed with "democratic" verbiage in British schools. And so, in 1947, the British ignominiously retreated from their largest colonial possession, and the Hindus and Moslems promptly began to massacre each other on a scale that brought joy to the hearts of the apostles of "self-determination." And the "Republic of India" and Pakistan were created as enemies of our race and civilization.
(18. A typical financial operation carried out by artfully depressing the value of Marconi stock in both England and the United States to induce its owners to sell for a fraction of its worth and then artfully inflating its value to sell it to the public for more than it was worth. It involved the bribery of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, an unprincipled opportunist named Lloyd George, by the common device of "selling" him at depressed prices stock for which he would not be expected to pay until it greatly increased in value (it soared suddenly to twelve times its former price). English newspapers that were still in English hands sometimes caricatured Lloyd George as a little boy traveling under the escort of his two Jewish tutors, Isaacs and Samuel.)
(19. See the inadvertent admissions in the laudatory biography by H. Montgomery Hyde, Lord Reading (London, 1967), Chapter 8. For example, he censured and forced the resignation of General Dyer for having restored order in Amritsar after a mob killed five Englishmen, beat an Englishwoman almost to death, looted banks, and otherwise exhibited their idealistic aspiration. The fact that General Dyer had been publicly thanked by the decent Sikhs, who bestowed on him the highest honor in their power, merely proved the need for the "radical revolution" that would teach them "nationhood" and perpetual violence. Another trick was a loud campaign to end "racial discrimination," an infallible means of stirring up trouble and inciting other races to hate ours.)
Yockey certainly understood that the "successful Indian Mutiny in 1947," as he called it in the Proclamation, was a consequence of the First World War, which was itself suicidal and an effect of the "Culture-disease" spread by the Jews, but he does not remark on the curious circumstance that the British retreat from India had been conducted, not by Englishmen, but by aliens with British titles. He comments on the fatal decadence of the British aristocracy and upper class, (20) which he attributed correctly to a spiritual decay, but, perhaps in keeping with the racial theory we noticed above, he does not ask the drastic and fearful question, How British are the British? It is a crucial question that admits of no precise answer, and discussion of it would require an inordinately long excursus. (Cf. note 27 below.)
(20. General Hilton (op. cit.), writing from an entirely different standpoint, also attributes some part of the responsibility for the loss of the Empire to the dilution and demoralization of the upper classes by "democracy" and Jewish ethics. The subject races respected gentlemen (cf. note 6 above), but not the bounders who gradually replaced them in an age in which a Lloyd George could become the King's Prime Minister and harbor several Jews in his Cabinet. The General could have mentioned the most flagrant instance of which I have heard. Around 1925, a certain Charles Arthur, who probably could not have attained a commission in the army before 1914 and certainly could not have held it long, was a Captain in His Majesty's Army and was appointed by His Majesty's Government Aide-de-Camp to Prince Hari Singh, son and heir presumptive to the Maharaja of Kashmir. The up-to-date young captain enlisted several accomplices and worked the old badger-game on the na‹f young prince, whom they successfully blackmailed for the astonishing sum of 125,000 pounds sterling. Their enterprise would have remained unknown, had not Captain Arthur and one or more of his accomplices forged an endorsement on a cheque to cheat the "outraged husband" of his share of the loot.)
THE HEARTLAND
For Yockey, both kinds of colonies have only a secondary importance. The attitudes and cultural vitality of Europeans who have established themselves in other continents are determined by the power and vitality of their mother country. European dominion over other races is merely an epiphenomenon, a measure of a European nation's power, a salutary reminder that, as he tells us, power can be maintained only by increasing it.
We return, therefore, to the fundamental fact that new weapons have imposed on Europe a necessary unity. He is aware, of course, of the impediments to such a union: the ethnic differences that seem small only when our race is compared to other races; the corresponding differences in traditions and temperament, producing what Jacques RiviŠre described as discordant nervous rhythms; and the diversity of languages, perhaps the most troublesome barrier of all and one that grows higher, as the major languages deteriorate with the decline of education in the several countries. So great are the differences within Europe that the eminent historian, Geoffrey Barraclough, (21) denies that "European unity" ever existed in the past or the present, rejects all claims for a "common western European tradition," and sees no cultural force that can create "bonds (or potential bonds) of unity between England and France (for example) or France and Spain." Very well, but later in his book he foresees that in the future "the war of 1939-45 will appear...as the decisive conflict in which Europe, committing suicide, surrendered mastery to the coloured peoples." So, in the end, he sees, as does Yockey, a unity imposed on Europe by a common destiny, by the natural and implacable hatred that the other races feel for our own--races that both the Soviet and the United States, in an effective partnership, are inciting and arming against our homeland.
(21. Geoffrey Barraclough, History in a Changing World (Oxford, 1955), pp. 43. 183.)
Yockey urged Europeans to consider the grim realities of the plight they brought upon themselves by their insane and suicidal war for the Jews. He told them bluntly that they must not permit themselves to be narcotized by the endless drivel about "peaceful solutions," "world peace," "one world," and the rest of the gabble to which weak minds are addicted as to opium or cocaine. If they are to have a future, they must deal with both the aliens that drove them to suicide and their own tares, which he, using a German idiom, called the "Michael stratum."
It is a regrettable but undeniable fact that the great mass of the population is interested only in present comfort and gross satisfactions; unwilling to take thought for their class, their nation, or their race and incapable of taking such thought anyway; materialists in Yockey's sense of that word (which has nothing to do with philosophical thought, from which they would instinctively flee as owls from the light) and craving only animal satisfactions, although they frequently have fits of religiosity or hypocritically affect a concern for their "fellow man," if such concern is in vogue and profitable. They are proletarians, regardless of income; they are by nature Untermenschen, the more pernicious the greater their incomes or the higher the positions to which they have climbed in a governmental or industrial bureaucracy. Theirs is the ochlocracy for which the United States made the world safe, while making the world unsafe for civilization. They are, however, a necessary part--a very large part--of every population, and the first task of a statesman is to control that mass in the interest of a civilization it cannot understand.
Yockey reminded Europeans that the only political reality is power, military power, not the twittering of idealists and "Liberals" as they hop from perch to perch on a tree of which they cannot see the roots or understand the life. And he suggested the means whereby Europe might regain at least some of the power that it had insanely thrown away to please its enemies.
THE NUTCRACKER
Yockey saw Europe as lying, temporarily helpless, between two overwhelmingly powerful antagonists, so that the only choice left to it was a choice between its two enemies, which were fortunately enemies of each other. His thesis depended, therefore, on his belief that the Soviet Empire and the United States were irreconcilable forces. And since the United States was obviously an instrumentality of the Jews, that meant that the Jews had lost control of Russia. Yockey thus proposed a solution to a problem that has been earnestly, sometimes furiously, and in the end inconclusively debated ever since, so that it remains the most urgent problem that is immediately before us. On the truth or falsity of Yockey's solution will depend our foreseeable future.
We are confronted by a total lack of trustworthy data. All of our information concerning conditions inside Russia comes from either Soviet or Jewish sources and is therefore mendacious except insofar as it may, through inadvertence or coincidence, contain some elements of fact. Russia--I speak of Russia because the rest of the vast Soviet Empire is merely its appendage--is, on even the most hopeful assumption, in the hands of men who have mastered the techniques of misinformation and disinformation, and who have virtually absolute and total control over all significant news concerning events in their empire, except what may come through Jewish sources. To be sure, a considerable number of men have defected from the Soviet and found asylum in Western nations, but for each of them we must first try to determine whether or not he is, as some of them undoubtedly are, a Soviet or Jewish agent, sent to increase our perplexity and confusion by providing a superficially different variety of misinformation and disinformation. If we have satisfied ourselves of his bona fides, we have the even more difficult problem of determining whether his reports are misleading because his knowledge of the facts is limited and inadequate, or because he has made his report serve his own resentments or ambitions, or because he conceals some part of the truth to avoid offending the Jews or a corrupt and perfidious government that could at any time return him to Soviet territory and a terrible death.
Our dilemma may be illustrated by a trivial bit of news from Russia, chosen at random. The press recently reported that Brezhnev was being treated by a wonderful "psychic healer," whose photograph shows her to be a not unattractive young woman, white but certainly not Aryan. She is said to have a luxurious apartment in Moscow, complete with servants, to travel in a limousine, complete with chauffeur, and to dress expensively and elegantly.
Our press is apt to be truthful in reporting trivial matters, if one allows for the journalists' normal sensationalism. If the "psychic healer" were said to be ministering to a British Prime Minister or an American President, we would suppose that he either
1) was in fact suffering from some psychosomatic malady, or
2) had found a neat way to maintain a mistress in style.
But the news is about the Soviet President and came through a censorship that is vigilant about even trivialities. So we have to consider other possible explanations:
3) Brezhnev has become senile and feeble-minded, and the rulers of the Soviet are preparing us for his replacement.
4) Brezhnev's sickness is political, and we are being prepared for his removal by sudden death or forced retirement into obscurity.
5) The mention of Brezhnev is merely a trick to secure wide publicity for a story concocted by Russian experts in psychological warfare to further the epidemic of superstition and irrationality that is reducing the American masses to imbecility and thus hastening the national paralysis. This interpretation is supported by the inclusion in the story of a statement from a Russian physician, who certifies the miraculous cures accomplished by the witch's "laying on of hands." The story therefore fits neatly into the long series of stories that have been coming out of the Soviet in recent years to make credulous persons believe that Russian "scientists" are making wonderful discoveries about "extrasensory perception," "telepathy," psi-power," and other occult hocus-pocus.
6) The story was manufactured by the Jews for the same purpose. As everyone knows, their press and boob-tubes in the United States are making a concerted effort to induce hallucinations in the masses by lustily advertising the charlatans, thaumaturges, astrologers, "psychics," evangelists, and other swindlers who are so lucratively preying on the ignorant and simple-minded.
7) There is the last possibility that this and other hokum about "psychic" marvels in Russia, instead of being acts of psychological warfare, more or less accurately reflect a wave of occult superstition in the Soviet that is tolerated either because (a) the rulers think it provides harmless amusement for the masses, or (b) the regime is actually disintegrating and cannot shore up the official Marxian religion. The latter hypothesis will please those who wish to attribute recent disorders in Poland to Russian weakness, and the perennial hopefuls who never tire of assuring us that there is a craving for "freedom" in Russia and that a proletarian revolution there is sure to break out any moment since 1947.
The story about the "psychic healer" is, of course, too trivial to be of interest other than as an example of the kind of questions that we must ask ourselves about every bit of seemingly significant news that comes out of Russia, a territory that is enclosed by a censorship as efficient as the famous border that prevents unauthorized escapes from Soviet territory. No one can be really certain of what goes on behind that barrier. The most brazen lying is commonplace even when there is no official censorship. There is no greater intercourse between two nations that than between Britain and the United States, and thousands of Britons are visiting or travelling in this country at any given time. But nevertheless one of the leading newspapers in London, The Observer, on 8 March 1981 carried a scare-head in large type: "Shadow of Terror Falls on U.S. Jews," and feeble-minded Englishmen were invited to believe that all of the millions of God's Race in this country were cowering in dread of the moment when the American "Nazis" will start popping them into gas chambers and reducing them to holy ashes.
We have been assured so many times that the Jews were losing or had lost control of Russia and the Soviet! The first wave of such hopeful thinking came when Bronstein, alias Trotsky, scuttled out of Russia, having purportedly lost a power-struggle with Dzhugashvili, alias Stalin. One consequence was that the misfits, crackpots, overgrown infants, and mattoids that formed the Communist Parties in civilized countries split into "Trotskyites" and "Stalinists," who quarrelled as furiously as did the Christian Homoousians and Homoeousians. The net result, however, was to accelerate and amplify the diffusion of Communist propaganda, and in the late 1930s the weekly periodical, Time, which was then still largely in American hands, suggested that Bronstein and Dzhugashvili were really co"perating in staging a performance for the suckers. The subsequent murder of Bronstein in Mexico proves nothing, for by that time (1940) he had become an embarrassment and impediment to "Stalin," who needed to reunite his stooges and dupes in the United States in preparation for the day when the American cattle would be stampeded into Europe. The view expressed by Time is not widely held now, but it has never been conclusively refuted.
After Trotsky's exodus from the new Holy Land in 1929, the next onset of propaganda that the Jews were losing control of their Soviet colony came with the "purge trials" of 1936-37, in which a passel of "Old Bolsheviks," most of them Jews, were spectacularly prosecuted and liquidated by Stalin's subordinates, most of them Jews. The trials were a shock to Westerners who na‹vely believed no hair on the head of a Jew could be harmed in a country controlled by his fellow tribesmen, forgetting how savagely Jews slew one another in struggles of power within their race, e.g., when Jesus and Onias slugged it out for the office of High Priest in 170-169 B.C., or the otherwise unrecorded occasion around A.D. 30 that provided the corpses which proved to horrified archaeologists that Jewish ingenuity had found a way to increase even the torments of crucifixion for fellow Jews who were mutinous. No one yet has convincingly explained why Stalin preferred to stage a grandiose show for the civilized world instead of having the selected "Old Bolsheviks" quietly disposed of in convenient lime-pits.
Yockey, however, was convinced by a smaller show in Prague and, as he tells us at the beginning of The Enemy of Europe, he revised its text in 1952 to take into account an event that he had foreseen in 1948. He discussed it in greater detail in an essay, "What is Behind the Hanging of the Eleven Jews in Prague?" It was clearly written for publication by his European Liberation Front, but, so far as I know, never printed. (22)
(22. It may have appeared in the short-lived periodical, The Frontfighter, of which I have seen only one number. I have photostats of a typewritten copy. It is reproduced in Appendix II below.)
Yockey marshals his arguments effectively. When Stalin joined the Jewish Crusade Against Europe, he appealed to Russian nationalism and patriotism to encourage his armies and peoples. That is one of the few verifiable facts before us, but we remember that our great War Criminal used American patriotism to pep up the livestock that he was sending to Europe to slaughter and be slaughtered for Yahweh's Master Race. For that matter, the cannon-fodder were told that wicked Hitler planned to invade the United States, and there were nincompoops so ignorant of military and naval logistics that they believed it. On the other hand, it was Germany's purpose to destroy the Soviet, so there was a genuine basis for Stalin's appeal to his subjects.
It is undoubtedly true that the Slavs feel a deep racial antipathy to the Jews and would gladly purge their territory of them. The question, however, is whether they are or will become sufficiently intelligent and strong to indulge that desire in defiance of the rest of the world, whom the Jews would infallibly incite against them.
It is probably true that the Jews planned to obtain a monopoly of atomic weapons by having them made the exclusive property of the silly vaudeville show in New York City called the "United Nations," which was simply a flimsy screen for their age-old dream of "One World" under their rule. (23) If so, Russia's insistence on using American and British knowledge to equip herself with the feared weapons disappointed them. To that extent, at least, Stalin acted as a Russian Czar, not as a stooge for the Jews.
(23. It would seem that the Jews lost interest in the farce, which now serves to provide, at the expense of American taxpayers, a luxurious life in New Jerusalem-on-the-Hudson for diplomatic riff-raff and savages, whose endless jabbering is as significant as that which may be heard at the monkey house in Bronx Park. Muzzy-headed American women still fancy that the babble has meaning, but the Jews are too intelligent to pay attention to it and probably do not even laugh when some idler calls for a "resolution" against their world-capital in Palestine.)
Yockey believed that the "cold war," proclaimed by the Jews' half-English stooge, Churchill, on a visit to the United States, was really an attempt by the Jews to encircle Russia, rather than a convenient pretext to get more Americans killed, in Korea and elsewhere, and to pump more blood out of the veins of American taxpayers to flush down sewers in Asia and to subsidize, under the guise of "foreign aid," the Communist conquest of one nation after another. It must be remembered that at the time Yockey wrote, the rodomontade manufactured in Washington sounded more convincing than it does now in retrospect, and that the "cold war" did excite intelligent Americans with a hope that they could force their government to action in conformity with its endless jabbering about "saving the Free World."
Yockey also took seriously the Yiddish yelping about "anti-Semitism" in Russia, which may have been no more than a ploy to deaden the hostility toward Russia felt by Americans who still hoped that their nation would someday act in its own interests. It must not be forgotten that the Americans who were most hostile to the Soviet were precisely the ones who would be mollified by reports that the Russians were shaking off their Jewish masters. (24)
(24. A good example is Commander S.M. Riis, a veteran of Naval Intelligence, who was stationed in Russia at the time of the Jewish take-over of that country in 1917-18. In his old age, he succeeded in boarding the ship that had brought Kruschchev to the United States; he conversed with agents of the N.K.V.D. disguised as simple Russian sailors and was assured that Kruschchev was a "real Russian" who was kicking out the alien invaders. Believing that the Jews had at last lost control, he was greatly encouraged. See his Karl Marx, Master of Deceit (New York, Speller, 1962).)
Yockey also noticed that in the United States a pair of Jews, the Rosenbergs, were falsely accused of treason (for they had been strictly loyal to their race) and thrown to the wolves--to appease the Americans who resented the betrayal of their own country by Roosevelt and his successors, and also to facilitate the escape of other spies and saboteurs who had been caught in the act.
Yockey therefore concluded that the "treason trials in Bohemia" were "an unmistakable turning point" and, despite the official piffle in both Russian and Jewish sources, marked an "undeniable reshaping of the world-situation." The fact that "the Russian leadership is killing Jews for treason to Russia" was nothing less than "a war-declaration by Russia on the Jewish-American leadership." Stalin, who, Yockey recognizes, "had been pro-Jewish in his inner- and outer-policy" for thirty-five years, had at last taken the part of Russia against international Jewry, who had to abandon their hopes that they could "replace the Stalin r‚gime." Yockey could not foresee that Stalin would die a year later in circumstances that gave rise to rumors that the Jews had at last succeeded in poisoning him.
To the end of his life, Yockey remained convinced that a war between the Jews' United States and the Soviet was inevitable. That conviction was the basis of his last essay, written shortly before his death in 1960. Its cover is reproduced here on the following page [see original--Ed.].
I do not know whether Yockey saw and approved the vividly symbolical painting, in the manner of Salvador Dali, that is reproduced on that cover or the date that is set beneath it. It he did set the date, 1975, he was in good company, as I shall remark later.
The World in Flames is a concise and lucidly logical conspectus of the situation in 1960, cogent if one accepts the premise that the Russians had liberated themselves from the Jews. On that assumption, the relentless expansion of Soviet power and the establishment of a Soviet outpost in Cuba, at the very doors of the United States, represented a series of defeats for the international race.
Yockey's analysis of the military situation is still valid. The Americans, if they are driven to fight the Soviet, will rely on ballistic missiles, but cannot win a war, since, even if they had an effective army, it could not mount an invasion of Soviet territory with the enormous number of ground troops necessary to occupy it, and Europeans cannot be induced to fight again for the American-Jewish symbiosis. Russia will use ballistic missiles, since the logistic problem of transporting armies across the Atlantic or Pacific is one she cannot solve.
American missiles can inflict a certain amount of damage on a few cities, etc., but Russia is relatively invulnerable to such attacks because she is not really urbanized, her important installations are scattered throughout her vast territory, and her essentially agrarian people have the high morale of imperialism and will not be dismayed by such destruction and losses as it may be possible to inflict on them. Russian missiles, produced by German scientists and technicians and therefore more accurate and effective, will be directed at American cities, the destruction of which will not only paralyze the nation militarily, but will dismay a population already demoralized by peace-lubbers, fatuous females, and youth made derelict and cowardly by the rotting of our culture. The blasting of a few cities will make the panic-stricken rabble eager to surrender. (Yockey probably did not know that Washington was even then making studies of "strategic surrender" in the event of hostilities.)
When the United States surrenders, as it must and will, the situation will be drastically changed. Yockey notes that the British, a relatively civilized people much given to prating about their moral superiority and to the vapid idealism of humanitarians, having obtained the support of Americans crazed by a holy war, induced the Germans to surrender in November 1918, and then, by an act of unprecedented treachery, blockaded the helpless Germans for the express purpose of killing civilians, and did in fact starve to death a million Germans before lifting the blockade in July 1919. Now the Russians are barbarians and have never talked nonsense about the "sanctity of human life" and similar vaporings of sentimentalists. Their leaders, furthermore, are realists and have never shown the slightest inclination to imagine that treaties are more than pieces of soiled paper. Even if the United States does not surrender unconditionally (that would be poetic justice!), the Russians will not be obligated by such terms as they may have granted on paper to spare themselves unnecessary effort. In all probability, therefore, they will proceed, after the surrender, to annihilate forever the United States as a possible source of future trouble. They will, of course, immediately destroy all of the country's remaining industrial capacity. What is uncertain is whether they will elect (a) to occupy the territory with troops, reduce its population by starvation or shooting them as may seem the more entertaining, and spare the rest for use as serfs, at least until the land can be colonized by Russians, a virile and growing people; or (b) to reduce the territory to a lifeless and uninhabitable desert.
Yockey, writing in 1960, believed that the inevitable war might be precipitated at any time and would certainly begin no later than 1975, the date given on the cover of his booklet. He obviously miscalculated, but so did men with access to the secret information accumulated by what was left of American Intelligence services. It was also in 1960 that an American Colonel in Military Intelligence, who had extensive experience during the Korean "War" and had maintained, after his retirement, close connections with the C.I.A., privately assured me that the war was inevitable, that the United States would be quickly vanquished, and that the country would be occupied by Russian troops, who would systematically exterminate all Americans suspected of intelligence and self-respect. That, he was certain, would happen by 1970 at the latest. His calculations thus allowed a shorter term than Yockey's, whose major thesis he did not accept. He believed that when the Russians invaded this country, the Jews would joyously co"perate with them, as they had done everywhere in Europe. He also believed that the Russians would therefore minimize damage to New York City and other Jewish enclaves in the United States.
Other miscalculations, made at the time by men whose experience and knowledge qualified them to judge, gave approximately the same result, with only a difference of a few years in the terminal date. It would take many pages to recapitulate the evidence and logical deductions on which the various estimates were based, and many more to inquire why the expected war did not occur. It will suffice to have made it clear that Yockey, an observer without access to secret information, was no more in error than experienced men who had the great advantage of knowing facts that were concealed from the public.
Please click here for our mailing list sign-up page.
