THE ENEMIES 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 (Tbingen, 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 r‚gime 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.
THE PARADOX
Yockey was aware of the major objection to his analysis: If the Jews had
lost control of Russia, how did it happen that the United States, which
saved the Soviet in 1941-45, (25) continued to facilitate the expansion of
Russian power? I cannot do better than quote his answer:
‘Russian “successes”—except for its German-made rockets—are all the gift of
the Washington r‚gime, Jewish-American political stupidity is invincible.
But the power-gifts which the Washington r‚gime has made to Russia are not
explicable entirely by simple stupidity, simple incapacity. There is a
further factor at work that the Zionist Washington r‚gime is on both sides
of most power-questions in the world. Its sole firm stand is its fundamental
anti-German position: Germany must be destroyed, its young men must be
slaughtered. In Algeria, Washington is with both sides: it is with the
French Government, as its “ally”: it is with the rebels by virtue of its
world-program of “freedom” for everybody. In Egypt, the Washington r‚gime
told Palestine, England and France to attack, and when Russia rose, it told
them to stop. It was, within a week, anti-Nasser and pro-Nasser. It occupied
Lebanon, then evacuated it. It held back Chiang when, from his island, he
would have attacked China, with whom the Washington r‚gime was then at war.
It defended South Korea, but helped the Chinese maintain their supply line
to the front. During the Chinese War in Korea, it made war and negotiated
peace at the same time, for years. In Cuba, it forbade the exportation of
arms to the loyal Batista and thus helped Fidel Castro; now it is committed
to the overthrow of Castro.
‘It is a psychological riddle, decipherable only thus: the Zionists have two
minds, which function independently. As Jews, they are committed to the
destruction of Western Civilization, and in this they sympathize with
Russia, with China, with Japan, with the Arabs, and as such they
anathematize Germany, which is the mind and heart of the Western
Civilization. As custodians of the United States, they must half-heartedly
retain at least the technical and political domination of that Civilization
even while destroying its soul and meaning. In a word, they are working
simultaneously for and against the Western Civilization. Quite obviously,
they are thus doing more damage than conferring benefit.....
‘Thus the newspaper tag of “East versus West” is meaningless. It is East
versus East, with the West supplying the lives and treasure for destruction.’
The foregoing analysis is, of course, open to question. Was there ever any
change in the policy actually pursued by the government in Washington, as
distinct from bleating by Presidents and the like to keep the boobs
confused? Was not that policy consistently and uniformly directed to
ensuring the maximum disgrace and loss to the Americans and to making them
take slow and unperceived steps toward their eventual liquidation? The
commitment “to the overthrow of Castro” of which Yockey speaks was, of
course, just a spoonful of paregoric for the grown-up moppets. Most
recently, as everyone knows, the United States delivered to Castro another
possession, Nicaragua.
(25. In his essay on the hanging of the eleven Jews in Prague, Yockey
mentioned a small part of what America, at the behest of its Jewish masters,
gave to the Soviet: 14,795 airplanes, 375,883 trucks, and 7,056 tanks. He
seems not to have known that the Soviet was also supplied with both the
technical information and the materials necessary for the manufacture of
atomic bombs. In The World in Flames, he does comment on the thoroughness
and ubiquity of Soviet espionage in the United States, in contrast to the
nugatory efforts of American Intelligence to penetrate Russia, but he seems
not to have asked himself to what extent Soviet espionage depended on Jews
in its service and on co”peration with the Jewish espionage system,
admittedly by far the best in the world.)
Yockey’s attribution of schizophrenia to the Jews is, of course, subject to
the basic consideration that we can never understand their mentality: we can
only observe the actions of a race generically different from our own and
accumulate data which will enable us to say, statistically, that in a given
situation the racial collectivity will react in a specific way. It is always
hazardous and usually or invariably wrong to describe their conduct or
motives in terms of our psychology and morality. What would be schizophrenia
in an Aryan or group of Aryans, for example, is such by contrast with the
normal mentality of our race. If it is characteristic of another race, it
cannot be an anomaly in that race, and what seems abnormal to us must be
normal in it. Yockey, however, is right in that those who believe that the
Jews no longer control Russia must postulate that their racial mentality
functions in a way that is incomprehensible in terms of our standards of
rationality.
By far the most thorough, objective, and cogent presentation of the case for
the view that the Russians have attained at least a measure of independence
is found in Wilmot Robertson’s The Dispossessed Majority and its pendant,
Ventilations. (26) He assembled all the usual data, and almost every datum
is open to doubt. Statistics and statements from Russian and Jewish sources
represent what their authors thought it expedient for us to believe at the
given time, and the Jews notoriously conceal, so far as possible, their
actual numbers in each country they have infiltrated. When we are told, for
example, that the percentage of Jewish deputies in the Supreme Soviet
dropped from 41.1% to 0.25% between 1939 and 1958, we wonder whether the
source is Russian or Jewish; if it is an estimate made by a European, it
must be largely based on personal names, and the ingenuity of Jews in
masquerading under native names and otherwise concealing their race is
notorious, and we have the further and insoluble question of the genetic
effects of a tincture of Jewish blood in any individual’s ancestry. (27)
Furthermore, if the persons holding office are demonstrably non-Jewish, they
may nevertheless be mere puppets manipulated from behind the scenes by Jews
through wives, financial or political pressure, or deeply implanted
superstitions.
(26. The Dispossessed Majority (Cape Canaveral, Florida, 1972), pp. 451-465,
cf. pp. 346-353. Ventilations (ibidem, 1973), pp. 9-17. The publisher,
Howard Allen Enterprises, announces that completely revised editions,
printed from newly set type, of both books will be published in the autumn
of 1981.)
(27. See above, p. 27, note 30. If Dr. Nossig is right abut the genetic
peculiarity of his race, that opens possibilities far more drastic and
terrible than any thus far glimpsed or imagined by even the most vehement
anti-Jewish writers. With the exception of a few noble families that have
kept archives—it is said that there are in Britain two families that can
trace their ancestry back to 1066 with certainty—the genealogical records of
most individuals, even those who have attained some prominence, seldom go
back more than a very few generations without the help of fantasy, and they
quickly reach the point at which ancestors, especially females, are mere
names. The names of Jews fall into three categories, viz.: 1) authentically
Jewish names, e.g., Isaac, Jesus, Nathan; 2) Western names that have become
distinctively Jewish, e.g., Rosenthal, Finkelstein, Oppenheimer; and 3)
distinctively Aryan names assumed to conceal the individual’s race, e.g.,
Montagu, Stewart, Brown. Resort to such disguises is an inveterate Jewish
habit, probably dating from the time at which the race first developed its
techniques for penetrating nations of goyim. And usually when the bearers of
such names are not our contemporaries, the deceit can be detected only
through the indiscretion of the Jews themselves. For example, the exemplary
myth of Esther in its fuller text, preserved in the Septuagint, is warranted
“authentic” (!) by pious Jews, and the names given are Dositheos, who is
identified as a Jewish priest and Levite, his son, Ptolemaios (=Ptolemy),
and the latter’s son, Lysimachos. All are good Greek names; the first, we
happen to know, was frequently assumed by Jews and so might suggest some
suspicions; the second is, of course, the name of the famous Macedonian
dynasty; and the third is the honored name of a number of distinguished
Greeks. If we saw the names out of the context, we should never doubt but
that Ptolemy and Lysimachus were of pure Greek ancestry and, of course,
Aryans.)
The cumulative effect of the data taken together is impressive, but it seems
to us inconceivable that the Jews, having taken over the whole government of
Russia in their Bolshevik revolution (28) and always conscious of their
secret and vigilant antagonism toward the races that show a tendency to be
less than perfectly docile, could ever have permitted themselves to lose a
mastery attained with such long and persistent labor and intrigue. (Note
that we instinctively credit the Jews as a race with an order of
intelligence higher than that of Aryans, and think them exempt from the
fatuity that led our race to throw away its power and revel in its own
degradation and impotence.) The only plausible explanation is Robertson’s.
(28. Aryan observers who were on the scene in Russia at the time of the
Bolshevik take-over assure us that fully 85% of the Bolsheviks in positions
of authority were Jews, and we know that the most important of them were
sent into Russia from Switzerland by the stupid Germans (who were resorting
to what could be described as a species of germ-warfare, probably at the
suggestion of Jews high in Kaiser Wilhelm’s government) and by Woodrow
Wilson, who insisted that the British escort to Russia a shipload of
venomous vermin from the East Side of New York City. A secret report to the
U.S. State Department in 1919 (released from classification as secret in
September 1960) lists the thirty foremost Bolshevik leaders, and identifies
twenty-nine of them as Jews and one as a “Russian.” That one “Russian”
exception was Ulyanov, alias Lenin, who, as is universally admitted, was a
mongrel of mixed Jewish and Tatar (Turko-Mongolian) ancestry and without a
drop of Russian blood. It is nugatory to inquire anxiously about details and
to wonder, for example, whether the real name of “Zinoviev” was Apfelbaum.
It would not really matter if all the official heads had been Russian, for
credit for the operation must go to its architects. St. Paul’s in London is
the work of Sir Christopher Wren and the mansion that now houses the Thomas
Publishing Co. in Springfield, Illinois, is the work of Frank Lloyd Wright.
The identity and race of the stone masons who worked on the former, and of
the bricklayers who worked on the latter structure is irrelevant, as is the
race of their various foremen.)
This explanation rests on two premises:
1) The Jews have a racial genius for infiltration, subversion, revolution,
and destruction.
2) Their race is devoid of ability to organize and direct a viable society,
whatever its type and whatever the political theory on which it is based.
Having created chaos, the Jews can themselves survive in it only by
enlisting the managerial talent of another race, commonly selecting
administrators from the surviving (lower class) population of the nation
they have just destroyed.
The first of these propositions is beyond question. It is verified by all
history, for no nation deeply penetrated by Jews has long survived. It
corresponds, furthermore, to their racial psyche, as frankly stated by some
highly intelligent and remarkably candid members of the race, as, for
example, by Samuel Roth in Jews Must Live (29) and by the eminent Maurice
Samuel, (30) in his oft-quoted avowal:
‘We Jews, the destroyers, will remain the destroyers for ever. Nothing that
you will do will meet our needs and demands. We will forever destroy because
we need a world of our own.’
(29. Roth’s Jews Must Live (New York, Golden Hind Press, 1934) has—for
obvious reasons—disappeared from most or all libraries and become extremely
rare. It is a book of 319 pages, including the frontispiece, etc.; about
half of it was reprinted, Birmingham, Alabama, 1964, and is available from
Liberty Bell Publications. Roth’s is by far the most complete description of
the quotidian behavior of the great mass of ordinary Jews in business and
social relations, and we all owe him gratitude for his honesty and
admiration for his courage. Relevant here is the reaction of Jews when the
lowly Aryans try to have a club or a hotel or a residential district of
their own. The Jews yell about “discrimination” and by bluster and, if need
be, secret financial pressure, force their way in, but when they have made
it squalid and hideous with their vulgarity, they abandon it and flock back
to their own colonies, preferably leaving the Aryan owners bankrupt and
dispossessed. Such conduct would show malice in an Aryan, but, if we are
objective, we must attribute it to the impulsion of a racial instinct that
operates as automatically and as subconsciously as an uncorrupted Aryan’s
instinctive admiration of certain forms of beauty.
There is an interesting analogy in the behavior of the Jews in ancient
Alexandria, where a huge swarm of them, estimated at one million, took over
a large part of the city and made it their vast and opulent ghetto, into
which no Aryan, naturally, wanted to go. Not content with that, they
perpetually swarmed through the rest of the city and were moved by their
“righteousness” to break up the Greeks’ theatrical performances and athletic
contests, harassing the goyim until they finally lost patience, whereupon
the Jews rushed wailing to the reigning Ptolemy or Roman governor,
complaining of “anti-Semitism” and “persecution,” and often, through the
intrigues and financial power of wealthy and ostensibly civilized Jews,
obtaining some punishment of the “intolerant” Greek population. Since the
Jews, so far as is known, reaped no profits from these events and some of
their rabble were injured or killed in the riots they provoked almost
regularly every few years, their harassment of the Aryans must have been
instinctive, rather than the result of some conscious plan or conspiracy.)
(30. See above, p. 45. The reprint is available from Liberty Bell
Publications.)
One could corroborate Samuel’s statement by citing hundreds of Jewish
writings, ancient and modern. An example from the early years of the
Christian Era is one of the great Jewish hoaxes, the forged Sibylline
Oracles, (31) which were disseminated (naturally with a forged certification
that they were authentically Greek) to demoralize and subvert Graeco-Roman
civilization by exciting dismaying apprehensions among the ignorant and
credulous. No Aryan, I imagine, can read them without being appalled by the
nihilistic lusts and venomous hatred of civilization that inspire them. A
recent writer has cited, as an example of the innate nihilism of the Jewish
soul,
‘the Jewish apocalypse that the Fathers of the Church selected for inclusion
in their appendix to the “Old Testament.” That wild phantasmagoria describes
in loving detail all the disasters and torments with which Jesus will
afflict and destroy the civilized peoples of the earth when he returns in
glory from the clouds with a squad of sadistic angels. One should note the
characteristic provision that goyim are not to be merely killed outright:
they are to be made to suffer agonies for five months first. But what Lloyd
Graham has properly called the “diabolical savagery” of the Jew God is not
satisfied with exterminating all the goyim with every kind of torture a
lurid imagination could invent. He destroys the land, the mountains, the
sea, the whole earth; he destroys the sun and moon; and he rolls up the
heavens like a scroll, presumably including even the most remote
galaxies...*Everything* is annihilated. And all for the sake of Jesus’s
pets, an elite of 144,000 male Jews who despise women. For these, to be
sure, he creates a New Jerusalem, in which they will loaf happily for a
thousand years.’ (32)
One can only stand aghast at the ferocity of that lust to annihilate the
whole universe!
(31. There are adequate editions, under the title Oracula Sibyllina, by Al
Rzach (Vienna, 1891) and J. Geffcken (Leipzig, 1902, reprinted 1967). I have
not seen the edition by A. Kurfess, Sibyllinische Wessagungen (Mnchen,
1951), which is said to contain a German translation. Some portions of the
collection have been translated into English in various discussions of early
Christianity, but I know of no complete translation of the long and
miscellaneous collection. If there were one, persons whose minds are
saturated with apocalyptic nonsense would undoubtedly find in it wonderful
“prophecies” of the election of Reagan, the Jews’ terrorism in Lebanon, and
perhaps the latest increase in postal rates.—A few old Greek reports of
oracular statements are inserted here and there in the collection of
forgeries to lend an air of authenticity to the hoax, of which the aim was
to throw a scare into ignorant and weak-minded goyim, although some items
encourage them to hope for a savior of some kind who will make all the earth
his kingdom, with brotherhood and oodles of “world peace” for everyone, by
teaching the wicked to venerate the living “Sons of the Great God.” It is
usually difficult to date the various hariolations, but it seems that the
earliest forgeries in the collection were perpetrated by Jews in Egypt
during the Ptolemaic period: see John J. Collins, The Sibylline Oracles of
Egyptian Judaism (Society of Biblical Literature, 1974).)
(32. Ralph Perier in Liberty Bell, August 1980, p. 20.)
Robertson’s second proposition is less patently true, but it may be
significant that in the apocalypse we have just mentioned, when the New
Jerusalem is lowered en bloc from the newly-created sky, it is minutely
described with what Frank Harris called “the insane Jew greed, which finds a
sensual delight in mention of gold and silver, and diamonds and pearls and
rubies,” but there is no practical provision for the Chosen Few of the
Chosen People who are to spend the next thousand years in it. We may assume
that they will be miraculously supplied with food and raiment, perhaps by
hard-working angels, and can spend part of their time in swilling down food
and drink; but the noble males will have no nasty females around, and we can
only guess whether they will find succedaneous amusements. For the rest,
they evidently will have nothing to occupy their idle hands and vacant
minds—for a thousand years! It looks as though the author of the wild
hariolation was intent only on the glorious destruction of the whole
universe, and gave no thought to organization of the society that was to
follow.
Jewish mythology has much to say about kingdoms and an empire of Solomon in
the stolen land of Canaan, but archaeological data is too scanty to permit
reconstruction of the historical basis for those tales. It is fairly
certain, however, that when the wealthy Jews in Babylon betrayed the city to
Cyrus the Great, the only non-Jew whom they ever called their christ, they
made a deal with him for special privileges in his empire, for that is
securely established by the Elephantine papyri. (33) The privileges seem to
have included the establishment of a religious capital in Jerusalem, and a
Biblical book called Esdras (*Ezra*) and Josephus (34) give us a vivid
description of the great caravan of rich Jews who set out from Babylon,
their chariots loaded with gold and silver, with thousands of their goy
slaves trudging along behind, while hundreds of slave musicians went ahead,
so that the caravan travelled “to the music of harps and flutes and the
clashing of cymbals,” while the majority of Jews, who preferred to stay with
business in Babylon, rejoiced and made merry. And when the immigrants
reached Jerusalem, they began to dispossess the natives and kick them
around, and they cunningly made their new Temple a fortress, as Herod was to
do much later.
(33. Edited by A. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C. (Oxford,
1923). The Jews of Elephantine, who thought of themselves as perfectly
orthodox and seem to have been so regarded by the newly-established Temple
in Jerusalem, recognized as the chief of their gods one whom they called YW
(probably pronounced * Yu’ *, a form that became * Ia * in the Septuagint)
or YWH (thought to have been pronounced * Ya’u *) and provided him with a
female consort, ‘NT (probably identical with the Ugaritic-Canaanite goddess
‘Anath). In the fifth century B.C., therefore, the Jews had not yet
generally adopted the henotheism which appears in most of the “Old
Testament,” which they converted into monotheism when they came into contact
with Graeco-Roman Stoicism and saw how expedient it would be to kidnap the
Stoic’s Providence (*animus mundi*). Of course, the erudite Bezalel Porten,
in his Archives from Elephantine (University of California, 1968), labors
mightily and learnedly to disclaim the early polytheism of the orthodox
Jews, once (p. 175) even going so far as to suggest that the magnanimous
Jews subsidized the worship of the gods of Arameans in Elephantine as a
“goodwill gesture”!)
(34. Antiq. Iud., XI, i-v, 1-183. There is an excellent edition and
translation of this work by H. St. J. Thackeray, completed by Ralph Marcus,
in the Loeb Library. Needless to say, the decrees of Cyrus and Darius quoted
in the Biblical book and (with variations) by Josephus are forgeries.)
Under Persian protection, the Jews enjoyed autonomy, taxing and oppressing
the hapless natives of Palestine (including the Samaritans, the native Jews,
who vainly appealed to Persian justice), but when we hear next of them, (35)
the high priest, John, murdered Jesus, his brother, right in the inner
sanctuary of the temple, evidently as part of a civil disturbance so great
that the local Persian governor had to intervene to restore order—and he, of
course, was cursed for his pains, ostensibly because he wanted to peek into
the sanctuary, where the Jews kept something they did not want goyim to see.
(36) A spot of murder in the sanctuary did not seem worth noticing to the
Jews of John’s faction, for he was undisturbed in the exercise of his pious
office.
(35. Antiq. Iud., XI, vii, 297 sqq.)
(36. What the secret was is not known. The soldiers of Pompey reported they
had seen in the sanctuary a statue of Yahweh with an ass’s head. They are
unreliable witnesses, of course, but there is some uncertain corroboration
of their report, and such theriomorphic gods were normal in Egypt, whence
the Jews claimed to have come. We cannot affirm that the soldiers were
right, but what we must do is avoid the knee-jerk reflexes of most
historians, who ignore this and all comparable evidence because they know
that God’s Holy People wouldn’t do nothin’ wrong. The Jews’ talk about the
strict piety of their race is a hoax, and false even after they appropriated
the monotheism of the Stoics. For a brief summary of some recent
archaeological evidence, see the Scientific American, CCXXVIII #1 (Jan,
1973), pp. 80-87. It is uncertain whether the Jews who worshipped Helios and
Apollo in their synagogues in the Third Century (A.D.) identified Yahweh
with those gods or added them to their ceremonies to ingratiate themselves
with the “pagans” among whom they were living.)
John was succeeded by his two sons, who seem to have shared the high
priesthood until one brother decided to knock the other out on the grounds
that he was married to a Samaritan bitch instead of a nice orthodox Jewess,
and that started another smouldering civil war. And so it goes, on and on,
endlessly, with the Jews in Palestine unable to keep peace among themselves;
with their various factions appealing to the Seleucid Greeks or the Romans
to restore order in favor of one faction, while all factions are seemingly
united in hatred of the civilized but useful goyim, whom they try to play
off against each other through elaborate intrigues; and with the distracted
goyim unable to protect the Jews who are friendly to them and are
accordingly murdered stealthily by sicarii, experts in the art of plunging
daggers into a man’s back when he is off his guard.
In contrast to the perpetual disorders and outbreaks in Judaea, where the
Jews enjoyed local autonomy, the majority of the Jews, scattered in enclaves
throughout the civilized world (with the largest concentration of them
probably in Babylon) and thus directly under the laws of the nations in
which they had lodged themselves, seem to have lived in comparative peace
with each other and with their hosts, except on the rare occasions on which
there was an opportunity to betray a city to invaders or on which a
self-appointed christ incited the Jewish rabble to insane outbreaks and
massacres of the hated goyim.
After A.D. 70, the only autonomous or independent Jewish state that we can
take into consideration is modern “Isra‰l.” (37) As everyone knows, the Jews
extorted the Balfour Declaration from Britain as the price for stampeding
American cattle into Europe in 1917, but since the English seemed to have
had some scruple about betraying their Arab allies, the Jewish terrorists
had to blow up and ambush quite a few stupid goyim before their new Zion was
established formally in 1948 and God’s People could start oppressing,
kicking, and butchering the natives. (38) On this artificial “nation,” which
is, of course, supported by double taxation (39) of the world’s beasts of
burden in the United States, see Robertson’s comments on it. It has its
internal stresses, of which some reports are permitted to reach us, and is
obviously held together only by its policy of steadily encroaching on the
Semitic peoples around it and expanding its ill-gotten territory with
military equipment donated by the American boobs. Living on money from the
goyim and terroristic aggression, “Isra‰l” is certainly no proof that the
Jews have the ability to organize and govern a state of their own.
(37. Not all Jews in Palestine followed the christ who caught the dozing
Greeks and Romans off their guard in 132 and had great success in
slaughtering them, but since the Romans were so bigoted that they
disapproved of his cleverness, his ephemeral kingdom was quickly reduced to
guerrilla bands hiding in the hills, and the christ never really governed
any of the territory he claimed.—The Jews did infiltrate and take over the
kingdom of the Khazars in the Eighth Century, but too little is known about
its internal government to permit us to use it as an example. (Incidentally,
the Khazar-theory, so dear to Christians who want to eat their cookie and
have it too, will have to be abandoned, if we accept the elaborate
haematological study by Professor A.E. Mourant and his assistants, The
Genetics of the Jews (Oxford, 1978). His results show that the Jews, despite
the great differences in physical appearance, form a single hybrid race,
having an infusion of at least 5% to 10% of Negroid blood, wherever in the
world they have taken up residence. ) -- The old Jewish colony in India
claims to have penetrated that sub-continent before 175 B.C., since it did
not observe the five great Jewish festivals, all of which (despite
fabricated claims to greater antiquity) were instituted after that date.
Whether or not those Jews reached India so early, it is certain that they
never formed a state of their own: Schifra Strizower, The Bene Israel of
Bombay (Oxford, 1971).—Arthur J. Zuckerman’s long treatise, A Jewish
Princedom in Feudal France, 768-900 (Columbia University, 1972), was based
on tortuous inferences from illusory evidence, and his mighty Jewish realm
in southern France and northern Spain was only a figment of his own
imagination; see the review by Professor Bernard Bachrach in the American
Historical Review, LXXVIII (1973), pp. 1440-41.)
(38. One wonders whether the British would have been so prejudiced as to
become vexed, if the Jews had blown up their Parliament while it was in
session. The first bomb planted in the building failed to explode and the
Jewish High Command cancelled its orders before a second could be placed;
see Avner, Memoirs of an Assassin (New York, 1960), pp. 104-121. His
organization of “freedom fighters,” he says (p. 64), operated on the
principle that “an Englishman would always be a filthy Goy, who could be
killed for that reason alone.”)
(39. “Double taxation” because, in addition to the enormous subsidies that
are openly and secretly sent to “Israel” by the Americans’ government, the
vast sums that are “privately” remitted by Jews residing in the United
States are also taken from the American people. No one dares to protest.)
There is much to be said for Robertson’s analysis, and we would accept his
conclusion that the Russians have at last emancipated themselves—but reason
revolts.
It is true that the Jews, who have always to be “persecuted” to conceal the
extent of their actual control and power, are now screeching about
“aunt-eye-see-mites” in Russia, but every few days we see the photographs of
our real rulers, Kissinger, Armand Hammer, and others of the tribe, cuddling
with Brezhnev and other real or supposed masters of Russia; American bankers
are eager to supply the Soviet with seemingly unlimited quantities of the
counterfeit currency manufactured by the Federal Reserve; and American
farmers toil in their fields to supply the Soviets with all the grain and
other foodstuffs they want. That, of course, may be just more of the looting
to which the American serfs are accustomed. What really matters is the Jews’
apparent satisfaction at the results of their sabotage of our armed forces.
Since Yockey wrote, our Army has become what he foresaw. Demoralized by the
operations carried out in Korea and Vietnam to kill and main as many young
Americans as possible while arranging defeats that would show the world how
crazy and contemptible Americans are, (40) our remaining military officers
are cynically trying to “stick it out” until they can retire on large
pensions after twenty years. They are replaced by Jews, mulattos, and
uniformed bureaucrats, whose notion of fighting is intriguing for promotion.
If we look at our “fighting men,” we see a motley horde of louts, perverts,
females, and savages sullenly awaiting the day when they can put the hated
“honkies” in their place. Do you really think that with that rabble the
United States could defeat and occupy Ireland? For that matter, could our
ground troops occupy Cuba?
(40. It will be remembered that an American officer was even tried by
court-martial and imprisoned for having killed some of the enemy in Vietnam.
The court-martial was held by our Army in slavish and shameful obedience to
the outcries of journalistic pimps whose employers were engaged in a
concerted effort further to demoralize our armed forces, and the campaign
involved downright lying about the conditions of warfare in Indo-China. For
an understanding of what war is like in such territory with such a
population, see William Wilson’s The L.B.J. Brigade (Los Angeles,
Apocalypse, 1966_. The essential point is that the Vietnamese are naturally
and by instinct as barbarous and treacherous as the crazed British and
Americans made themselves when they repudiated all the canons of our
civilization in the Jews’ Crusade Against Europe.)
Russia now has the largest and most modern navy in the world. Our navy, far
inferior in equipment, sports mulatto Admirals who strut around in
ostentatiously slovenly attire and lord it over their white underlings, who
try to conceal their resentment at the degradation imposed on them. The
British officers who inspected the Nimitz, our largest carrier, were amazed
to discover that parts of the great ship are “off limits” to white officers
so that the savages won’t kill them. The Nimitz is not a warship; it is a
floating slum, on which, as a recent accident showed, the multi-racial
warriors can’t stay off drugs long enough to perform a perfunctory naval
exercise. One hears that on some of our smaller carriers that still have
white officers in command, it is thought that the white crew could “get rid
of the niggers” and get the ship into fighting trim.
Since the operation of aircraft requires skill and intelligence, our
obsolete bombers and comparatively few modern fighting planes could be
relied upon, barring sabotage by multi-racial ground crews commanded by such
ornaments as a Jewess Major General. But the failure of the maladroit
attempt to rescue the “hostages” that we had cravenly abandoned in Iran
naturally suggested doubts as to our capabilities even in the air, although
the ineptitude may have been ordered in Washington. In the event of a war
with the Soviet, we could sacrifice our air force and inflict a small or
moderate amount of damage.
As for intercontinental ballistic missiles, the chances are that we are now
inferior to the Russians, while our country, as Yockey pointed out, is far
more vulnerable than theirs.
At the time of writing, it looks as though the Jews intended to order the
Americans to clear the way for a Jewish advance and occupation of the
Semitic countries around “Isra‰l.” We could undoubtedly destroy the oil
fields in Saudi Arabia and thus augment the fake “energy crisis” that is now
used to chevy the boobs, and we could create by bombing from the air chaos
in the other Semitic or partly Semitic countries—unless Russia intervened.
That would mean a war with the Soviet, and, incidentally, if there were such
a war, the Russians would certainly have to indulge, in sheer self-defence,
their natural racial antipathy to Jews, all of the three million or more of
them now in Soviet territory.
Since Yockey wrote, there has been one major alteration in the situation.
The natural and inevitable racial hostility between the Russians, who are
largely Aryan, and the Mongolian Chinese has evidently converted their
original co”peration into active enmity. It is possible that fear of a
Chinese invasion would deter the Russians from intervention in the Middle
East, but we do not know enough about conditions inside both of the empires
that we created as our powerful enemies to calculate the chances of that.
The most we can say is that it does not now seem likely that the Russians
would abandon a strategically important part of the globe to Zion. And if
they do not, that means war with the Jews’ vassals, the United States.
In the event of such a war, the stooge in the White House could utter
platitudes and talk about “saving the world for democracy,” but there is no
slightest indication of a will to fight in a nation—if it still is a nation
(41)--that has long been lousy with peace-lubbers and the like. The Russians
would have all the advantages of a first strike, and could inflict some
spectacular damage on our cities, and, as Yockey predicted, our rabble would
immediately clamor for surrender and start a furious civil war, if
Washington even hesitated to put into effect its cherished plans for a
“strategic” capitulation.
(41. In the continuous avalanche of books, most of them worthless and many
worse than worthless, that vertiginously descends from the presses these
days, the few important works are buried in the mass and often carried to
oblivion unnoticed, but I hope no one has overlooked the sagacious analysis
of our society by Professor Andrew Hacker, The End of the American Era (New
York, 1970). He concludes that the United States has become nothing more
than a geographical area, inhabited by incompatible races and individuals
who, rootless and bewildered, no longer have a common culture or even a
common interest. “What was once a nation,” he says, “has become simply an
aggregation of self-centered individuals.” Our civilization—Aryan
civilization, although he does not use that naughty word—has been so eroded
and rotted that the American majority has lost all cohesion and has become
merely a colluvies of miniature minorities, each composed of no more than
half a dozen persons with a common purpose. Therefore, he concludes, “Our
history as a nation has reached its end,” and we have reached “a juncture at
which it becomes pointless to call for rehabilitation or renewal.” The only
question now is the exact date and form of the final catastrophe. I wish I
could refute that conclusion.)
The only alternative is the remote possibility that the United States has
some really horrendous secret weapon which has not been betrayed to the
Soviet, but that possibility is very remote.
So with all this before us, we are asked to believe that the Russians have
become independent? Preposterous! With the example of Germany before us, we
all know how terrible is the vengeance that Yahweh’s Master Race inflicts on
insubordinate goyim. If the Jews had been defied by the Russians, our armed
forces would be drastically purged and every able-bodied white American
below 40 would be conscripted and trained for the coming war. The Jews and
their lackeys in all the media of communication would be frantically pumping
a factitiously patriotic sludge in the faces of the boobs. Our holy men
would be yelling in their pulpits about our Christian duty to smite the
Antichrist in Moscow and help an omnipotent god who obviously cannot help
himself. Our automobile plants would be again converted to the production of
airplanes and tanks; and all our laboratories would be filled with “crash
programmes” to devise more effective missiles and counter-missiles.
You have only to look around you to see how absurd is a suggestion that the
Jews’ supremacy has been threatened in the Soviet! It’s simply unreasonable!
So we say, but we do not know. My only point here is that if the Jews no
longer control the Soviet, the only explanation is the one advanced by
Yockey and Robertson. Although they differ in their psychological analysis,
they agree that the explanation must be some mental peculiarity in Yahweh’s
Sons that impels them to conduct that would be irrational and insanely
improvident in an Aryan.
THE THIRD SIDE OF THE COIN
We have, I think, followed Yockey and Robertson in drawing logical
conclusions from the evidence before us. But all of our evidence—what we are
told and what we are not told—comes from either Russian or Jewish sources.
We do not have even a simple choice between stories told by two habitual
liars, for when they disagree, both may still be lying, each in his own
interest. And the world’s masters of deceit are wily and subtle.
When travelling carnivals toured our country, the yokels were regularly
fleeced by what was known as the shell game, which had many variations. In
one variation, the sucker was led to believe that he had been given,
inadvertently, a glimpse of the obverse of a coin and so could confidently
bet on what would appear on the reverse when the shell was lifted, but, of
course, when the coin was exposed, one with a different reverse had been
substituted by a bit of prestidigitation.
When we ponder the Soviet enigma, one possibility always occurs to us, that
internal rot within the empire may have gone much farther than we have been
permitted to suspect by our sources—may have gone so far that what seems a
monolithic state has some inner and hidden weakness great enough to affect
its foreign policy. That speculative conjecture, however, we have always
dismissed as gratuitous, since there was no plausible evidence to support
it.
The periodical called Fortune, in its issue for 29 June 1981, published an
astonishing article, entitled “Russia’s Underground Millionaires,” by a Jew,
Konstantin Simis, formerly a Soviet lawyer and official in the Ministry of
Justice, who says that in 1977, when the manuscript of a book that is to be
published in this country was found in his apartment, he was invited to
leave Russia and join his son, a professor in an American university.
According to this article, the Soviet is as rotten politically as the United
States, although, of course, there are superficial differences. Corruption
within the Communist Party we naturally take for granted, but here we are
told of massive corruption of the Communist administration by bribery from
outsiders, almost all of them Jews. There are distinct analogies to the
almost universal political corruption that was established in this country
in 1917 by the crackpots and mutton-heads who tried to prohibit our people
from drinking alcoholic beverages.
We are told that there functions efficiently within the Soviet an enormous
black market with its own factories, its own distribution-system, and its
own retail outlets, operating comfortably by virtually wholesale bribery of
Communist managers and police, and operated by capitalists, almost all of
them Jews, who accumulate what are large fortunes by any standard and store
their surplus wealth in gold, jewels, and other things that are
intrinsically valuable. A typical entrepreneur, who was arrested, through
some mischance, by the Secret Police, was found to have in his possession
such valuables to the amount of 350,000,000 rubles, which, at current
exchange, would equal $546,000,000.
This great essor of Jewish enterprise, according to the author, began “in
the mid-1930s” with such talented entrepreneurs and masqueraders as Isaac
Bach, who, while officially only a supervisor in a small workshop and paid
as such by the state, was secretly a capitalist worth some $135,720,000,
“owning at least a dozen factories manufacturing underwear, souvenirs, and
notions, and operating a network of stores in all the republics of the
Soviet Union.” Such surreptitious business flourished, it should be noted,
while Lazar Moseevich Kaganovich was Stalin’s Deputy Premier in charge of
industry, and naturally continued to flourish under his successor in that
office, Benjamin Dimschitz, another Jew. (41a) And it has now reached the
high financial level shown by the one example mentioned above, which, we are
given to understand, was not at all extraordinary, except that the apostle
of free enterprise either neglected to bribe all the officers of the Secret
Police concerned or was rashly careless in some way that made it too awkward
for them to cover up for him.
(41a. Dimschitz (or Dymshits) is the only Soviet official of very high rank
whom Wilmot Robertson (*op. cit.*, p. 456, n. 16) recognizes as a Jew. It’s
evidently a matter of the right man in the right place. What is extremely
curious is that he is not even mentioned in the list published by Candour,
to which I shall refer in note 48, below.)
The commercial activities of those energetic Jewish businessmen interest us
only because they are all categorically prohibited by Soviet law, which
provides for the guilty minimum penalties of years of imprisonment in slave
labor camps. It necessarily flourishes through a vast system of pay-offs and
the like (42) that would do credit to the genius for organization shown by
American politicians. There are “tens of thousands of such factories” owned
by capitalists of the black market, but almost all of them are actually
state factories, operated by managers appointed by the Communist government,
who fulfill their quotas and then turn to production for the capitalists,
using, of course, the machinery provided by that state, their working staff,
and sometimes materials provided by the state, although the production for
the black market is usually of better quality and uses better materials. The
manager must be given his cut, of course, and so must the workmen, who are
often employed on overtime. All government inspectors must be bribed, and so
must all local agents of the Secret Police, especially those in the branch
that is expressly charged with policing industry. Much of the raw material
must be obtained from nominally state establishments, with, of course, a
corresponding round of cuts and bribes. The retail outlets are, for the most
part, state stores which handle black-market goods surreptitiously, and so
managers and bookkeepers and clerks must be given their cuts and massive
bribery must keep inspectors and agents of the police in line. And, of
course, it is necessary to put the fix on the bureaucrats who preside over
the inspectors and agents. In short, the Communist empire must be a seething
mass of political corruption. And after all such business expenses, the
promoters reap huge profits and become enormously wealthy.
(42. When Franklin Roosevelt was gabbling about the “Four Freedoms” to
entertain the boobs during the Jewish Crusade Against Europe, knowledgeable
“New Dealers” defined the Four Freedoms as the rake-off, the pay-off, the
shakedown, and the fix. There are technical differences between these four
aspects of government in a “democracy,” but we need not define them here.)
The “tens of thousands of factories,” we are told, are chiefly in Moscow,
Odessa, Riga, Tiflis, and other major cities in which are concentrated the
Jews now in Russia—some three million of them, according to Jewish sources,
who are now being “discriminated against” by the Soviet, it not being
explained why they are only half as numerous as the Jews who were
“discriminated against” by the Czarist r‚gime, under which they owned half
the industry of Russia, We may assume that free enterprise is providing good
incomes for a large part of the three million, perhaps most of them in one
way or another.
Despite the massive bribery of Communist officials, something more is
required for this vast clandestine business, which must be conducted without
written records, and in which sums that may amount to hundreds of thousands
of rubles exchange hands without documents of any kind or witnesses, “in an
atmosphere of complete trust,” such as could never exist among legitimate
business men in this country. The explanation is given by the author: it is
“the sense of national identity among Jewish underground businessmen,” who
may not be eager to migrate to their race’s capital in Palestine, but “feel
a blood relationship with it” and contribute money (in American currency!)
to it. If the commercial honesty that is dictated by a sense of racial
solidarity, which Aryans can only envy as they reflect with shame on the
egotistic venality and financial opportunism of their own people, is
reinforced by Jewish racial courts, the kahal, which some anti-Jewish
writers allege to be secretly maintained in Jewish colonies, the writer
gives no hint of them. (42a)
(42a. Jews vehemently deny the existence of the kahal and denounce as
“anti-Semitic” the Jew, Jacob Brafmann, who wrote the most extensive and
detailed description of the quasi-religious racial courts. His work has been
translated into German, with a learned commentary by Dr. Siegfried Passarge,
Das Buch vom Kahal, 2 vols., Leipzig, 1928. See also the work of the
Argentine writer, Hugo Wast, whose essay and novel, El Kahal, is also
published in Mexico (Editorial Diana, 6th edition, 1964). Wast describes the
operation of the Jewish tribunal in modern Argentina, and says “El Kahal es
un soberano invisible y absolut