30th November 1941, evening
What has happened in our midst is something unique—inconceivable in France, for example. And the French will never have a chief like the Duce.
31st January 1942, evening
Possibility of collaboration with France—The era of Italian Fascism— The birth of the SA.
The Jew is so stupid that he himself saws through the branch on which he’s sitting. In 1919 a Jewess wrote in the Bayrischer Kurier: “What Eisner’s doing now will recoil upon our heads.” A rare case of foresight.
France remains hostile to us. She contains, in addition to her Nordic blood, a blood that will always be foreign to us. There must be two Frances. Thus, the French who have compromised themselves with us will find it to their own interests that we should remain in Paris as long as possible.
But our best protection against France will be for us to maintain a strong friendship, lasting for centuries, with Italy. Unlike France, Italy is inspired by political notions that are close to ours. I was thinking of the Italian delegation I received yesterday. I met men who have rulers’ qualities such as are very much to my taste. What handsome individuals, and what a resolute air! Those are men who could play a part at the top level.
The Fascists paid with their blood much more than we did. The story of the conquest of power in Italy is a heroic epic. It always warms my heart to think of it. I can understand their emotion when they once more live through the time of the March on Rome.
Why should such men suddenly become worthless as soldiers? It’s quite simply because they lack a command. The Italian people are idealistic, but the cadres of the Italian Army are reactionary.
It was in 1921 that I first heard Fascism mentioned. The SA was born in 1920, without my having the least idea of what was going on in Italy. Italy developed in a manner at which I was the first to be surprised. I could see fairly clearly the orientation that it would be proper to give the Party, but I had no ideas concerning paramilitary organisations. I began by creating a service to keep order, and it was only after the bloody brawls of 1920 that I gave these troops the name of Sturmabteilung (SA), as a reward for their behaviour.
I had taught them the technique of concentrating their efforts on limited objectives, and at meetings to attack the opponent table by table. But it was confined to that. When the brassard proved no longer sufficient, I equipped them with a specially designed cap. That was after Coburg. The skier’s cap didn’t cost much. It was all done in a very empirical manner. Nothing of that sort was thought out in advance.
The SS started with formations of seven or eight men. In these we gathered the tough ‘uns. Things developed spontaneously, and subsequently acquired a speed comparable to that of developments in Italy. The Duce himself has told me that at the moment when he undertook the struggle against Bolshevism, he didn’t know exactly where he was going.
From the cultural point of view, we are more closely linked with the Italians than with any other people. The art of Northern Italy is something we have in common with them: nothing but pure Germans.
The objectionable Italian type is found only in the South, and not everywhere even there. We also have this type in our own country. When I think of them: Vienna-Ottakring, Munich-Giesing, Berlin-Pankow! If I compare the two types, that of these degenerate Italians and our type, I find it very difficult to say which of the two is the more antipathetic.
23rd April 1942, at dinner
My opinion of the Duce—The man who best understood the Bolshevik menace.
It will give me very great pleasure to see the Duce again and to discuss with him all the military and political problems of the day. I hold the Duce in the highest esteem, because I regard him as an incomparable statesman. On the ruins of a ravished Italy he has succeeded in building a new State which is a rallying point for the whole of his people. The struggles of the Fascists bear a close resemblance to our own struggles.
Did they not have, for example, six thousand six hundred dead at Verona? The Duce is one of the people who appreciated the full measure of the Bolshevik menace, and for this reason he has sent to our Eastern front divisions of real military merit. He told me himself that he had no illusions as to the fate of Europe if the motorised hordes of the Russian armies were allowed to sweep unchecked over the Continent, and he is quite convinced that, but for my intervention, the hour of decline was approaching for western Europe.
24th July 1942, at dinner
What to expect from the Dutch—The popularity of the Duce.
When people tell me that the Dutch will not make good SS-men, I always remember the cartoons of Spitzweg, who represented the German soldiers of the South German States sitting and knitting socks. But twenty years of instruction have put a very different complexion on the matter. A race like the Dutch, which has shown itself capable of organising a magnificent Far Eastern air service and which produces a host of first-class sea-men, can easily be taught to assimilate the military spirit. One must not lose faith in the essential soundness of the race, for sound it certainly is.
Bormann is quite right when, on the authority of his collection of photographs, he declares that the Duce enjoys an immense popularity. I have myself seen in a dozen different episodes in Italy how very popular the Duce is with the majority of the people; and there is no denying the unparalleled achievements of this man and of Fascism—the innumerable new factories, the construction of new houses and schools and hospitals, the great colonial enterprise and many more; when one recalls the deplorable state of Italy at the time of the Duce’s assumption of power, one realises the magnitude of his achievements.
Over and above all this he overcame Bolshevism, not by military force, but by superior intellect, and it is him we have to thank for showing for the first time, by his decisive defeat of the inner power of Bolshevism, that even in this twentieth century it is possible to recall a people to a sense of purely national pride.
There he has rendered us all a great service—much as, in the years to come, my own greatest service to humanity will be thought to be my success in saving Europe from the Asiatic onslaught.
The Duce’s political activity is considerably impeded by royal prerogative; it is, for example, all but impossible to assume the leadership of a country if the armed forces thereof owe allegiance to another. No business firm could be efficiently run by the managing director, if some other shareholder held a majority of shares, and was thus in a position to alter or cancel orders at will. Unless legislative and administrative power are in one hand, endless difficulties will arise.
When we Germans pass judgment on the Duce, we must bear all these considerations well in mind, not forgetting that, when all is said and done, it is the Duce we have to thank for the fact that Italy is not in the war on the side of the Allies.
The upper ten thousand of Italy, instead of realising that a victory for Communism would mean their own immediate annihilation, and instead therefore of giving him all the support they could, placed difficulty after difficulty in his way in the struggle against the Bolsheviks. They were as little conscious of the tremendous assistance they were giving the Bolsheviks as the stupid calf, of which it is said: “The stupid calf chooses its own butcher.”
Consider obtaining a copy of the complete notes
published by Ostara Publications.
20th August 1942, evening
A ’plane is a ’plane, and I detest those people who suddenly go all sporting! I hate all that type of bravado; the Duce is very foolish in this respect—he’s not the type for bravado! People sometimes ask me why I play no games? The answer is simple—I’m no good at games, and I refuse to make a fool of myself!
Bismarck, when asked to go swimming, said: “I think I can swim, but from me people would expect something of which I know I am not capable. I’d rather not!” The Duce might well take this to heart. It always makes me nervous when he pilots a ’plane; his job is to steer the Italian ship of State. When I think of the numbers who have lost their lives in this fortuitous fashion…!
Editor’s note: Under another title this essay by Kerry Bolton appeared in three instalments at Counter-Currents Publishing:
“If your paper is to continue its excellent work of opposing the policy of the Jew, please do not fight Russia also, for we in Europe look upon it as the only hope to prevent Jewish world domination by means of its stupid, willing, technically clever American slaves, the destroyers of Europe’s cities, the hate-mongers of the vile occupation and the hangmen of Nuremberg.” —European correspondent to Common Sense, a newspaper published in the US between 1947 and 1972
Both Germans and Russians seemed to have a better grasp of the Jewish Question than the trusting, naive Americans with little experience in the plate tectonics of the clash of civilizations. At the left, a National Socialist pamphlet: “Roosevelt betrays America!” The Germans thus caricatured a Jew controlling the American president as his puppet.
Today I read “The Cold War Axis:
Soviet Anti-Zionism and the American Right” by Kerry Bolton, published in three parts at Counter-Currents Publishing last month:
The phenomenon of Marxism from its advent was perceived in some quarters, including the anarchists such as Mikhail Bakunin, as a “Jewish” ideology. Ironically Marx himself considered capitalism to be “Jewish” in spirit, that the bourgeoisie were imbued with the “Jewish spirit,” and that “Jewish” and “bourgeois” had become synonymous. Marx believed that true Jewish emancipation would come with the destruction of capitalism. Marx wrote:
Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist…
The god of the Jews has become secularized and has become the god of the world. The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange.
The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of the merchant, of the man of money in general.
What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money.
Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Judaism, would be the self-emancipation of our time.
Marx’s condemnation of the “Jewish spirit” eventually provided an ideological rationalization for Soviet anti-Zionist policy, which was the heir of traditional Russian attitudes towards Jews as represented in Czarist days by the “Black Hundreds.” Soviet anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism were articulated under the guise of Marxist opposition to imperialism, chauvinism, colonialism, and ethnocentricism, all of which were equated by the Soviet propaganda apparatus with Zionism. One representative example is entitled Zionism: Instrument of Imperialist Reaction, published in 1970. The book is a collection of letters of protest against Zionism and Israel written to the Soviet press, mainly by Soviet Jews, and a selection of articles by various writers that had been published in the Soviet press. For example, Prof. Braginsky’s article “The Class Essence of Zionism,” originally published in Pravda, drew on Marxist and Leninist thinking in regard to Jewish autonomy, stating that Jewish assimilation is the “historically progressive process,” alluding to Marx’s position on the issue, and quoting Lenin.
Anti-Semitism from the Right
Jews as an often unassimilated minority have frequently been viewed by societies since ancient times as a source of subversion of the status quo. As for Russia in recent times, where traditionalists were resisting the inroads of modernization and what were perceived as the negative characteristics of industrialism on traditional religious and institutional structures, Jews were widely held by all segments of society to be harbingers of this modernization, including that which was in the form of revolutionary agitation. During the closing years of the 19th Century many Jews in Eastern Europe were divided between adherence to socialism and to Zionism, although there was also a large element that synthesized both, such as Poale Zion. The Socialist-Zionist movement goes back to Moses Hess, the so-called “Red Rabbi.” However the split endures. Churchill referred to this family rivalry in 1920 in the aftermath of the Bolshevik Revolution, as a “struggle for the soul of the Jewish people.” In writing of Chaim Weizmann, Laurence Krane writes of this:
Some Jews felt that the savior of the Jews would come through political reform such as communism or socialism. Others argued that assimilation would answer the problem of anti-Semitism and ease the economic hardships of the Jew. Still others maintained that immigration to Palestine, as Israel was called then, and by building up settlements in the Land would save the Jews from economic privation and exploitation.
Russian anti-Semitism manifested organizationally in The Black Hundreds, who opposed capitalism as much as socialism, and perceived them as being equally Jewish. The widespread distribution of The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion by Russian émigrés fleeing the Bolshevik Revolution is a well-known expression of Russian anti-Semitism and how traditionalists perceived the background of the events that were convulsing Russia. The Russian revolutionary upheaval in 1917 and the way the Czarists regarded it as of Jewish origin and implementation had a major influence on the way Russia was considered by German, American, and other Rightists. Czarist émigrés fleeing the Russian revolution brought The Protocols of Zion, for example, to Germany, along with their polemics on “Jewish Bolshevism.”
In the USA Czarist émigrés played a significant role in the portrayal of the Russian Revolution as of Jewish design. Borris Brasol was amongst the most prominent. Brasol was a Russian jurist and author of eminence, who worked as an assistant for the Minister of Justice, Schleglovitoff. It was Brasol who prepared over the course of two years the prosecution case against Mendel Beylis who had been accused of the Medieval accusation of “Jewish ritual murder” (sic) in Kiev in 1911 of a boy, Andrey Yuchinsky. Brasol went to the USA in 1916 to work as a trade representative, and stayed in the USA with the outbreak of the Russian Revolution the following year. Brasol was employed on the staff of industrialist Henry Ford’s newspaper The Dearborn Independent. When Natalie De Bogory, daughter of a Russian General, completed the first English translation of The Protocols of Zion in the USA, Brasol brought it to Ford’s newspaper, where it served as the basis of a series of articles that were published by the Ford Motor Company as a single volume, The International Jew. Brasol also successfully promoted The Protocols around military intelligence personnel as an employee in the US Department of Justice. One of Brasol’s documents is “Bolshevism and Judaism,” dated November 13, 1918. This is ascribed to American Military Intelligence, and purports to document an alliance between Jewish revolutionaries and Jewish bankers. Some of the information is correct; some of it inaccurate. For example Brasol alludes to the banker Jivotovski (Zhivotovskii), as being Trotsky’s father-in-law, as an example of an alliance between Jewish proletarians and capitalists, whereas he was Trotsky’s uncle, was indeed associated with sundry prominent players such as the “Bolshevik banker” Olof Aschberg of the Nye Banken, Stockholm.
These were the types of Russian influences that helped mould the attitude of the American Right in its attitude towards Russia from the time of the Russian Revolution. The “Jewishness of communism” is a theme that continues among American Rightists, but underwent a significant mutation as early as 1952, as a surprising number of American anti-communist conservatives reoriented themselves in regard to the USSR. It is this surprising shift in attitude that will be considered here.
American Attitudes toward Russia
Many American Rightists and conservatives other than the self-declared fascists and national socialists, like the German Hitlerites from their beginnings, absorbed Czarist émigré attitudes towards Bolshevism and Jewry. Father Charles Coughlin was among the most influential of those who condemned Bolshevism as Jewish. At first his principal concern was the social doctrine of the Church. Beginning as an adviser to Roosevelt, Coughlin broke with the president after what he considered Roosevelt’s betrayal to both bankers and socialists. Coughlin quickly recruited many followers to his National Union for Social Justice, and had a militant street arm, the Christian Front. Already Coughlin had attracted a wide audience as the popular “radio priest,” beginning on the air in 1926 from his small parish church at Royal Oak , Michigan. It wasn’t until 1930 that Coughlin, reaching 40,000,000 listeners via the CBS network, made his first attack on the “money changers,” who became increasingly synonymous with “Jews.” In 1936 Coughlin founded a weekly newspaper, Social Justice, which had a circulation of 900,000 subscribers in addition to being hawked on the streets.
Another relatively successful fascistic movement in the USA was the Silver Shirt Legion founded by a Hollywood scriptwriter William Dudley Pelley. Like Coughlin and many others of lesser influence, Pelley’s themes included the Jewishness of communism.
Francis Parker Yockey, the seminal philosopher of the American Right in regard to what became a pro-Russian orientation, emerged from this milieu. Yockey’s formative years politically were in Depression Era Chicago, where he moved in 1938 to further his education. This was at a time when many Americans were looking to radical ideologies which had triumphed in the form of Communist Russia, Fascist Italy and National Socialist Germany. An ideological war was being fought out between Marxism and Fascism, which manifested as a physical war in Spain. In Europe and further afield Catholics saw in the Social Doctrine of the Church an answer to the materialistic dogmas of Marxism and capitalism, and often this was translated into what could generically be termed “Fascism” but is more precisely defined as “Corporatism,” also called “clerical fascism.”
Yockey was associated with Pelley’s Silver Shirt Legion, specifically it seems as a lecturer. His first political literary effort would seem to have been written in 1939, “The Tragedy of Youth,” published in Coughlin’s Social Justice. As the association with the Pelley and Coughlin movements shows, Yockey was from a young age drawn to the “Right” and into movements that were particularly antagonistic towards Jewish influence. What is known about this often mysterious figure is that he had himself discharged from the military during World War II, and as a highly successful Assistant DA obtained a job with the prosecution team of the War Crimes Tribunals in Germany, for the purpose of infiltration and of seeking out unrepentant National Socialist veterans in post-war Germany. In 1947 Yockey secluded himself on the Irish coast and wrote his magnum opus Imperium, a Spengerlian tome calling for the Western Civilisation as a cultural organism to fulfill its cyclic destiny in creating an empire of the West.
At this time Yockey’s attitude towards Russia remained in the orthodox “anti-Semitic” mould in continuing to view Soviet Russia as under “Jewish control.” Under this conspiratorial scenario generally both the USA and the USSR were viewed as equally Jewish run and in cahoots to dominate the world at the behest of a small Jewish coterie pulling the strings in both states. This attitude persisted among many nationalists until the collapse of the USSR. However Yockey quite early discerned an underlying dichotomy within Bolshevism, regarding the latter as an alien import by cosmopolitan Jews, beneath which continued to exist the substratum of the “real Russia” with its own soul and its own historical mission. Yockey drew on the history of Russia to explain the dichotomy between Jewish Bolshevism and the Slavic soul, stating that such a divide goes back before Peter the Great to two ways of thinking; one that sought to “westernize” Russia, imposing imported thoughts and forms upon the Slavic masses, men of “strong instincts” rooted to the soil. Yockey referred to Moscow as “The Third Rome,” the new Byzantium, which despised the West in its cycle of decay, a perspective that has struck a chord with many in Russia again. Yockey even in 1948–49 was stating that “Bolshevism” could be pressed into the service of Pan-Slavic imperialism, in contrast to international communist revolution.
In 1952 an event occurred in Czechoslovakia that was to result in a major tactical shift for Yockey, who up until then had continued to see Russia as an “outer enemy” of Europe. Yockey explains in his essay “The Prague Treason Trial” the significance of the trial as signaling the reassertion of Russian over Jewish Bolshevism. In 1951 Rudolf Slansky, Secretary General of the Communist Party in Czechoslovakia, was arrested for “anti-state activities.” A year later he and thirteen co-defendants went on trial as “Trotskyite-Titoist-Zionist traitors.” It is interesting that Trotskyite and Zionist were used in conjunction. They were accused of espionage and economic sabotage, working on behalf of Yugoslavia, Israel, and the West. Eleven of the fourteen were sentenced to death, the other three to life imprisonment. Slansky and the eleven others were hanged on December 3, 1952. Of the fourteen defendants, eleven were Jews, and were identified as such in the indictment. Many other Jews were mentioned as co-conspirators, implicated in a cabal that included the US Supreme Court Justice Frankfurter, described as a “Jewish nationalist,” and Mosha Pijade the “Titoist Jewish ideologist ” in Yugoslavia. The conspiracy against the Czechoslovak state had been hatched at a secret meeting in Washington in 1947, between President Truman, Secretary Acheson, former Treasury Secretary Morgenthau, and the Israelis Ben Gurion and Moshe Sharett. In the indictment Slansky was described as “by his very nature a Zionist” who had in exchange for American support for Israel, agreed to place “Zionists in important sectors of Government, economy, and Party apparatus.” The plan included the assassination of President Gottwald by a “freemason” doctor.
With such a background it is easy to see how Yockey could regard the Trials as of such significance in regard to the USSR and Zionism, and indeed Jews per se; just as it is difficult to see how the majority of the Right in the USA, from conservatives to George Lincoln Rockwell, “Nazis, and certain statesmen in the Arab world such as King Feisal of Saudi Arabia, continued to see the Soviet bloc as Jewish run and in cahoots with their Jewish brethren in the US Establishment. Yockey discerned that the symbolic gesture at Prague towards the post-war power structure changed the world situation not only for the USA but for those who believe in the “destiny of Europe.” Hence those who sought the unity and revival of “the West” must regard the USSR not as a threat to Europe but as an ally in the “liberation of Europe,” writing: “First, and most important of all to those of us who believe in the Liberation of Europe and the Imperium of Europe: this is the beginning of the end of the American hegemony of Europe.” It is obvious that events which were strong enough to force Stalin to reorient his entire world-policy and to become openly anti-Jewish will have the same effect on the elite of Europe.”
The writing was actually very prominently on the wall since at least 1936, with the first of the “Moscow Trials” against Trotsky et al. The Stalinist campaign against “rootless cosmopolitanism” in Soviet culture, starting in 1949, should be seen as another significant event.
From 1952 in particular Yockey’s strategy was now to aid the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe as a bulwark against the US military occupation of Europe. Similarly, a “neutralist” line in the Cold War was demanded for Germany by no less that Gen. Otto Remer, whose Socialist Reich Party was causing a lot of worry for the Occupation Authorities, with whom Yockey was in association. However, an FBI report on Yockey in 1953 states that already in 1949 at the inaugural meeting of the European Liberation Front Yockey was advocating collaboration with the Soviets against the US Occupation. The report continues that Yockey spoke of the orientation of Germany eastwards. He also spoke of his aim of creating a mass circulation newspaper that would specialize in anti-American agitation. Yockey’s final work in 1960, the year of his death, “The World in Flames” reaffirms his position in regard to Russia and America vis-à-vis Europe.
The Impact of Yockey’s Pro-Soviet Agenda on the American Right
The two primary media within the American extreme Right for a pro-Soviet orientation were Common Sense, a fortnightly paper which achieved a relatively high circulation, and the National Renaissance Party, a militant fascist grouping, particularly active in agitating on the streets of New York with uniformed stormtroopers. Both Common Sense and the National Renaissance Party endured for a surprisingly long time.
1. Common Sense
In 1954 the House Committee on Un-American Activities (Velde Committee) deemed both Common Sense and the National Renaissance Party to be of sufficient importance to be the focus of their investigation and “preliminary report.” The committee expressed concerned that neo-fascists were exploiting the menace of communism in pursuit of their own anti-democratic aims.
Common Sense was founded in 1947 by Conde McGinley and published by the Christian Educational Association, Union, New Jersey. McGinley began publishing a paper in 1946 called Think. The following year McGinley’s paper became a tabloid and the name was changed to Common Sense. Common Sense began as a comparatively mainstream anti-communist conservative newspaper for those times, and billed itself as “leader in the nation’s fight against communism.” The Velde Committee report even mentions that, “At the outset, its columns carried a certain amount of factual information on communism.” The report states however that Common Sense changed direction in 1948 and became explicitly fascistic and anti-Semitic: “Beginning in 1948, however, Common Sense became increasingly outspoken in its statements of a pro-Nazi and anti-Semitic nature. It was soon almost exclusively a vehicle for the exploitation of ignorance, prejudice, and fear.”
It seems that Common Sense first published articles opposing the US Cold War policy against the USSR as early as 1952 (the year of the “Prague Treason Trial”) although there seems to have been an interregnum during which this pro-Soviet outlook was put into hiatus until 1966. The Velde report notes that 1952 was also the year that the National Renaissance Party adopted the Common Sense “line” on the USSR. Precisely as Yockey was writing Common Sense also stated that the German army, which had been prevented from destroying Communism during World War II, is now expected to do so at the behest of the USA. However Common Sense states: “This is to be a war against the Russian people – not against communism.” The Velde report comments: “In this statement, McGinley’s ‘anti-Communist’ and ‘patriotic’ publication apparently is not averse to serving the Communist propaganda cause.”
The Yockeyan perspective is repeated by a “European” correspondent to Common Sense, whose warnings were quoted by the Velde report as follows:
If your paper is to continue its excellent work of opposing the policy of the Jew, please do not fight Russia also, for we in Europe look upon it as the only hope to prevent Jewish world domination by means of its stupid, willing, technically clever American slaves, the destroyers of Europe’s cities, the hate-mongers of the vile occupation and the hangmen of Nuremberg.
However this pro-Soviet orientation does not seem to have been pursued until being resumed in 1966. At least from 1954 until 1966 Common Sense expressed a quite standard American Right-wing line that “communism is Jewish” and that the USSR remained under Jewish control.
In 1966 Common Sense published an article that was to be of seminal influence on the direction of the paper from then until it closed in 1972. The article is entitled “New York – Capitol of Marxism.” While it echoed the theme of the anonymous “European correspondent” in 1952, the anonymous writer of this article can confidently be stated to have been Fred Farrel. Common Sense prefaced the article by stating that: “We have never published anything quite like this before nor has anything similar been published to the best of our knowledge… Time alone will reveal the truth.” It seems likely that this was the first feature article presenting a pro-Soviet line to appear in Common Sense. However, it was not correct to say that nothing of the type had ever been carried elsewhere, as the National Renaissance Party Bulletin had been carrying pro-Soviet articles by Yockey and a German-American mentor, Fred Weiss, since 1952.
Common Sense writers were well aware of Yockey’s works. They had been carried in the book catalogue of the Christian Educational Association, the paper’s publisher. Yockey’s Imperium, Proclamation of London, and Yockey: Four Essays were featured on the front page of the catalogue with a picture of Yockey. These works by Yockey were also advertised in issues of Common Sense. The first essay Yockey is known to have had published, “The Tragedy of Youth,” was reprinted in a 1970 issue of Common Sense. One apparent Yockeyan influence on Common Sense is the use of his phrase “culture distorter.” In the Patriotic Reading catalog for example, the introduction refers to book publishing as being “dominated by alien culture-distorters.” The lead article on a 1970 issue of Common Sense is headlined “Christmas Culture Distortion.”
Yockey’s primary American colleague, H. Keith Thompson stated, “The Common Sense folks I knew well.”
Whatever the real identity of Fred Farrel, he was not alone in advocating the view that the USSR had divested itself of Jewish control, and other Common Sense columnists from 1966 to 1972 made that their focus. As stated, Farrel’s 1966 lead article set the tone for all the subsequent Common Sense analyses and commentaries on the USSR and American international politics. Farrel begins, “I am tired of Anti-communists who talk about ‘Moscow, Center of the World Communist conspiracy.’ Moscow is NOT and never has been the real center of Communism.” Farrel explained that the real center of Marxism “is always located at the center of Jewish Power, and that center today is not Moscow but New York.” Farrel explained that the Jewish element in Bolshevism was overthrown when Stalin ousted Trotsky. Farrel states that the rivalry between Trotsky and Stalin was not merely one of personal power, but was a fundamental power struggle between “Jewish Bolshevism” and Russian Nationalism. Farrel stated that once Trotsky and the “Jewish faction” had been removed from real power in the USSR Stalin proceeded to use Jews as functionaries. That has since become the theme of Jewish historians. For Farrel anti-communism in the USA was a racket. That theme gained momentum in Common Sense. Farrel stated that anti-communists miss the target completely in opposing Communism as an economic system. He stated it is “racial, not economic.”
It should behoove our anti-Communists to stop yammering about Russia. The Marxist problem is HERE, not there. After the Trotskyites were thrown out of Russia, they came to the United Stated, for New York was the breeding ground for the so-called “Russian Revolution” in the first place… Let us stop yammering about “Red Russia.” Russia may get herself out of Marxist slavery sooner than we will.
Farrel ended with a more unequivocal tone in praise of Stalin, by stating that he was “fighting a lonely battle against the Jews.” American anti-communists on the other had “could not make a patch on Stalin’s pants.”
It is Farrel who seems to have referred to Yockey most extensively. In a 1970 issue of Common Sense, while castigating the American Right and rejecting the Left-Right political dichotomy, Farrel referred to Yockey as an example of the way by which the majority of the Right will deal with somebody of real ability:
The Right Wing is firmly in the grip of a DEATH WISH. Time and again, I have seen idealistic young Americans get into these phony Right Wing movements, hoping to accomplish something solid and real. They learn quickly that the Lord High Nabobs of the Right quickly extinguish any spark of any real intelligence or effectiveness which flares in their ranks. They see that the Right, far from actually fighting Communism, secretly collaborates with Communism.
Typical is the way in which the Right Wing gasbags dealt with Francis Parker Yockey. Yockey never had an American supporter during his lifetime. The great Conservative gasbags of the American Right Wing want nothing to do with any living writer. They weren’t there when Yockey was murdered in his jail cell. Can you imagine Norman Mailer dying in jail? There would be a thousand Jews rattling the bars to bail him out. The young Gentile writer dies alone in a cell.
We think that it is a wonderful thing for Yockey’s books to be circulated and read. He had something extremely important to say and the American people ought to hear it. What they really need is an American publishing industry which will give adequate recognition to the young Yockeys who are alive today!
In a 1971 article Farrel quoted Yockey from the Proclamation of London when comparing democratic politicians with Russia’s Marshal Zhukov, who, Farrel relates, staged a coup against “the notorious Chief of Police, Laventri Beria,” in 1953 by bringing into Moscow two divisions of troops. Farrel considered “military power” the only remaining means of dislodging Jewish power.[24v] He quoted from Yockey’s Proclamation to illustrate his repugnance of the parliamentary politicians:
These deputies are mere things, replaceable units desirable only mathematically, in aggregates. Among them there is not, and cannot be, a strong individuality, for a man, a whole and entire man, does not sell himself like these parliamentary whores.
Again in 1971 Farrel quoted Yockey from the collection Four Essays. Farrel’s theme here was that the USSR was outmaneuvering the USA in the Middle East and that the USA was cultivating the support of China, the USSR having always opposed the communization of China, while the USA had backed the ouster of Chiang by Mao. His assessment of Stalin’s opposition to the Maoization of China is certainly correct, and was a matter that outraged Trotsky. Farrel assured his readers:
Disaster will not be long in coming. Today the Soviet Union is implacably hostile towards American Zionism. No better description of this hostility exists than that found in Francis Parker Yockey’s Four Essays. Yockey observed the decline of American Jewish power and the rise of Russian power in the world: “The basic reason for the diminution of power is spiritual-organic. Power will never stay in the hands of him who does not want power and has no plan for its use.”
A few months later Farrel cited Yockey’s final essay, “The World in Flames,” which Farrel described as “brilliant.” In this a third World War is forecast in which Third World dictatorships will line up with the USSR to defeat the USA and Israel. Farrel believed that the nuclear destruction of the USA was imminent. In Yockeyesque terms Farrel concluded by stating that Russia, having recovered from Jewish Marxism, “narrowly watches the follies of the funny little men who cavort in New York and Washington, not to mention Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. Russia will exploit these follies to the hilt.” He predicted that the future of the Jews would be nuclear annihilation in New York and Jerusalem and disappearance through assimilation in Russia. The West was finished, and anti-communist crusades were futile, as were political and economic arguments. The future would be based on military power.
To Farrel, “the best anti-Communists I have ever known were the Stalinists. They fought communism with a cold deadly, remorseless, realistic efficiency. Stalin was already in the business of fighting Communism before the revolution.” It was Trotskyism that the American establishment sought to re-impose on Russia, and that was the cause of the Cold War. Conservatives by siding with the Washington regime against the USSR under the guise of a phony anti-communism, which was actually anti-Stalinism, were siding with the “Jew-Trotskyites.”
What is known of the history of that period today shows that Farrel and others at Common Sense had great insights and valuable sources. The Cold War was ushered by Stalin’s refusal to accept the “Baruch Plan” for the “internationalization” of atomic energy which, as Gromyko was much later to relate in his memoirs would have meant US control; and secondly Stalin’s refusal to allow the UNO to become a world government, by rejecting the US proposal to give supreme authority to the General Assembly as a type of world parliament where, naturally, the USA would be able to buy the required number of votes on any issue. A salient fact of history is that it was Stalin who stymied these early efforts to impose a world state. Farrel was also correct in stating that the US Establishment was aligned with the Trotskyites, another matter that has only in rent years become the subject of widespread attention.
This was the consistent message of Farrel throughout the rest of the life of Common Sense, as the paper’s leading columnist. Other columnists propagated the same pro-Soviet line. William O’Brien’s analysis of the world situation in regard to the USA, Russia, and Israel echoed that of Farrel. O’Brien also quoted from Yockey’s Proclamation of London.  Paul Pulitzer regarded the USSR to be under “a Soviet brand of Nazism,” not communism, and he alluded to the speeches of Mussolini, Hitler, and Stalin before and during the Berlin-Moscow Pact in stating that the differences between Stalinism, Nazism, and Fascism were minor. Pulitzer lambasted the “world communist conspiracy myth” that was the preoccupation of both the US Administration and the Right-wing. Pulitzer commented that he “had been behind the Iron Curtain several times,” seen the troops, and “talked at great length with their officers.” Pulitzer’s assessment was that the Soviet forces could easily overrun the West, which had been rotted by liberalism.
The final issue of Common Sense was intensely pessimistic. The writers had done all they could to warn the USA of impending disaster, namely nuclear devastation at the hands of the USSR, and that the only option left was faith in Christ. The final word was left to Farrel, whose opening statement was that “the American civilization is beyond the point of no return.” America would be destroyed along with the Jews.
Despite the heretical position relative to the American Right-wing that Common Sense took from the time of Farrel’s first article in 1966 until the demise of the paper in 1972, circulation and the fortnightly appearance were maintained, as indicated by the “statement of ownership, management and circulation” forms that were filed. The Velde committee reported that in October 1948, Common Sense began with an average of 7,072 paid circulation for the previous year. For a 6 months period from March 15 to September 15, 1954, the paid subscription stood at 15,796. In 1970, despite what one might expect for such an unorthodox position within the anti-communist Right which existed throughout its life during the era of the Cold War, Common Sense filed its circulation numbers as totaling on average for that year 32,000; including 23,000 mail subscriptions.
2. The National Renaissance Party
The first fascist group to appear in the USA after World War II was the National Renaissance Party. Its emergence in 1949 therefore coincides approximately with the appearance of Common Sense (1948). James H. Madole was to lead the New York based group from its establishment until Madole’s death. The significance of the NRP in relation to the pro-Soviet orientation of a faction of the American Right is that it served as a vehicle for the propaganda of Fred Weiss, and H. Keith Thompson, the latter Yockey’s primary American contact and a registered agent for Gen. Remer’s Socialist Reich Party, and for Yockey. The Velde report comments that Weiss was the “chief source of propaganda for the NRP.” This is confirmed by H. Keith Thompson, who stated that “the chief financial backer of Madole was Frederick C. Weiss whom I knew very well. He was a native German who spent his later years in the U.S., a Spenglerian and a Yockey associate.” Thompson stated that Weiss’ essays were rendered from a mixture of German, Latin, and French into English by Thompson for publication, which appeared in the National Renaissance Bulletin under Madole’s name.
The Velde report comments that the 1952 “Prague Treason Trial” was also of seminal influence upon the ideology of the NRP, which can be taken to mean that Yockey and Thompson via Weiss had succeeded in adjusting the anti-Communist policy of the NRP. The Velde report states: “At the time of the Prague trials in 1952 and other anti-Semitic purges behind the Iron Curtain, the NRP defended the action of the Soviet leadership and implied that the example should be followed in Europe and America.”
Thompson has to be viewed as a conduit for the outlook of veteran German National Socialists, led by air ace Hans Rudel, Otto Skorzeny, Johannes von Leers (operating a newspaper from Argentina, called Der Weg, for which Thompson was the US agent), and Otto Remer whose Socialist Reich Party was to be banned in Germany. The attitude of certain German veterans was that they had been prevented from defeating the USSR during the war and they saw no reason why Germany should be sacrificed for the benefit of the USA (or the Jews) during the Cold War era. That was the “neutralist” policy of Remer’s Socialist Reich Party, and reflected Yockey’s outlook, as has been noted.
Thompson and Weiss were in 1955 distributing a series of pro-Soviet pamphlets among the Right through Weiss’ Le Blanc publications. These were of the same nature as the views propagated by Yockey and later by Common Sense, and it would seem superfluous to quote further such material.
William Goring, who as a student infiltrated the National Renaissance Party, and wrote a paper on his research, began with a description of Yockey and the European Liberation Front, “because they play an important part in the formation of the ideology of the NRP.” Goring states that when Yockey briefly returned to the USA from Europe in 1955 he joined the National Renaissance Party using the alias Frank Healy, but “stayed only long enough to publish his essay ‘The Destiny of America’ in the National Renaissance Bulletin under the name of James H. Madole, the NRP leader.” Goring states that Madole had been unaware of Yockey’s identity and prior to leaving the USA Yockey told “the astonished Madole” that he was visiting East Germany. Goring states that Yockey traveled through the USSR in 1957 or 1958 then returned to the USA.
Soviet Anti-Zionism, a Jewish-Communist Ploy?
Neither Madole nor Common Sense seems to have left a discernible legacy on the extreme Right with the demise of both in the late 1970s. However, with the 1967 Arab-Israeli war there was a new impetus for Soviet anti-Zionism. By this time, in Paul Lendvai’s opinion, Moscow had become the “Center and Exporter of Anti-Semitism.” While the “Prague Treason Trial” of 1952 had a seminal impact upon the ideological and strategic direction of Yockey and his followers, and on other Rightists such as the National Renaissance Party and Common Sense, the events of 1968 in Czechoslovakia and Poland served as the impetus for an increase in anti-Zionist, and arguably “anti-Semitic,” propaganda from the USSR.
Lendvai writes of the perceived “Zionist plot” against Poland, where the State accused Zionists of “an open attack on the political system and its leaders” in the form of intellectual dissent and student demonstrations, which had been prompted by the State suppression of a student theatrical production. This State repression was undertaken in the name of anti-Zionism, and factory and political meetings organized by the Communist party functionaries were undertaken under the slogan “Purge the Party of Zionists.” Landvai states that since 1966, there had been a “Jewish department” in the Ministry of the Interior, led by Col. Walichnowski, “author of the anti-Zionist best-seller, Israel and the Federal Republic of Germany.”
In Czechoslovakia, the 1967 war instigated a new campaign of anti-Zionism. Dissident elements had begun to criticize the anti-Israel policy of the regime. The Czechoslovak Writers’ Congress of June 26–29, 1967, addressed itself to the Party leadership. The Congress’ apparently pro-Israel position was also aligned with demands for liberalization. During the May Day demonstration of 1967 students carried the Israeli flag and placards demanding “Let Israel Live.” The philosophical faculty at Prague’s Charles University issued a petition demanding the resumption of diplomatic relations with Israel.
To the Right in the USA the prospect of “Moscow as the center of anti-Semitism” was a theoretical impossibility. The Right, from Southern segregationists to self-declared “Nazis” like George Lincoln Rockwell and his American Nazi Party, saw Soviet anti-Zionism as nothing more than another Jewish plot to fool Gentiles in general and the Arab bloc in particular. The theory was that anti-Zionist posturing by the Jewish controlled USSR would beguile the Arabs into being aligned with the Soviet bloc, and that the Jewish cabal that controls both the Eastern and Western blocs would have driven the Arabs into the arms of Jewish communism.
This conspiratorial view was held by King Faisal of Saudi Arabia, then the senior statesman of the Arab world. In 1970 Newsweek quoted King Faisal as stating, in reply to a question on the Arab-Israeli conflict:
If the crisis is tackled as we suggest, Soviet influence and penetration will cease. But Zionism and Communism are working hand in glove to block any settlement to restore peace. It’s all part of a great plot, a grand conspiracy. Communism is a Zionist creation designed to fulfill the aims of Zionism. They are only pretending to work against each other in the Middle East. The Zionists are deceiving the U.S. into believing they are on their side. The Communists, on the other hand, are cheating the Arabs, making them believe that they are on their side. But actually they are in league with the Zionists.
This quote was cited on the front page of The Thunderbolt, a newspaper of the segregationist National States Rights Party, edited by Dr. Edward R. Fields. Dr. Fields, echoing King Faisal’s theory, explained:
The most recent “showcase trials” of Jewish air hijackers in Russia is a clever joint Russian and Israeli maneuver to swing the American public opinion behind Israel. It also has the reverse effect of forcing the Arab nations into an even stronger dependency on Russia.
Dr. Fields then cited examples of several Jews holding high positions in the USSR, including Politburo member Dimitri Dymschits, and reprinted an article from the Canadian Jewish News stating that Brezhnev was married to a Jewess. It was a line that continued to be held by other well-informed writers such as A. K. Chesterton and Ivor Benson.
William Pierce and the National Youth Alliance
After the demise of Common Sense and the NRP, there were, however, several significant factions within the Right that arose and maintained the pro-Soviet position. These factions centered around Dr. William Pierce and the National Youth Alliance and Wilmot Robertson, editor of Instauration. Pierce and the NYA drew, in the initial stages at least, from Yockey, while Robertson appears to have arrived independently at his pro-Soviet conclusions regarding Zionism.
The National Youth Alliance had emerged from the “Youth for Wallace” campaign, instigated by Willis Carto. The NYA was led by Lou Byers. The significance of this of course is that it was Carto who first published Imperium as a single volume in 1962 and kept it in print. Carto had visited Yockey in jail in 1960 just before his death and had written the introduction to the Noontide Press edition of Imperium. Louis T. Byers had been the founder of The Francis Parker Yockey Society, and had died in 1981, according to a dedication in the Liberty Bell edition of Yockey’s The Enemy of Europe.
Pierce, who had been a physicist at Oregon State University, had briefly been associated with the conservative John Birch Society and with the American Nazi Party. After seeing Byers on a TV interview he had a meeting and joined the NYA in 1970, and launched a tabloid newspaper, Attack! Pierce ran the NYA and changed the name to National Alliance in 1974 and the name of the periodical to National Vanguard in 1978. The first and second issues of Attack! displayed prominent advertisements for Imperium.
In 1976 Attack! carried its first major statement on the Jews and the contemporary USSR. Beginning with the familiar theme of the Jews having taking over Russia and overthrown the Czar via the Bolshevik Revolution, the article adopted the position that Stalin had overthrown Jewish control after World War II. The second half of the article states that Stalin became suspicious of Jewish loyalties during World War II when they are supposed to have fled before the German army to the Russian Far East and then undertaken black marketeering. Pierce states that Stalin concluded that if the Jews could not be trusted at a time of warfare with an anti-Semitic state (Nazi Germany) how could Jewish loyalty be trusted if another conflict involved a state with a pro-Jewish orientation? After the war Stalin began a cautious policy of eliminating Jews from positions of influence, a difficult task because of the large number of Jews in the bureaucracy. Pierce alluded to the rumor that Stalin was intending to deport the Jews to the Russian Far East, and that he was poisoned in 1953 to prevent the plan. Pierce stated that after Stalin anti-Jewish measures were relaxed, but now that “Russian communists” had achieved supremacy they would not relinquish power to Jews. It was this perceived loss of Jewish influence or control in the USSR that resulted in the Cold War and subsequent news media and diplomatic protests that that USSR was anti-Semitic.
In 1979 a major article again addressed the subject of the USSR, focusing on a racial crisis that would force Russians to jettison whatever remained of Marxist dogma in favor of a Russian national consciousness that was already in evidence. Although Jews are not specified the author, Mark Weber, emphasizes that “there is no doubt that the Soviet Union is run by Russians” in government, bureaucracy, the military and the industrial-economic spheres. The situation the Russians faced was the expansion of the USSR’s Asiatic and Muslim minorities and a future threat from China. One might suppose, based on the apparent good relations between Russia and China, that the analysis was flawed. But the author believed that “blood will out,” and that the ancient rivalry between Russia and China, which was intense when the two were supposedly fraternal partners in communism, will again arise.
Wilmot Robertson and Instauration
Wilmot Robertson, the pen name of an erudite Rightist who established his reputation with a 500 page book, The Dispossessed Majority, in 1972, seems to have come to his conclusions about Russia and the Jews independently of Yockey or of Common Sense. However, he is likely to have been acquainted with Yockey’s works, having written for Willis Carto during the 1960s, according to Leonard Zeskind. Robertson, in his chapter “The United States and Russia,” referred to the patriotic and nationalist sentiments, even Czarist-era iconography and the revival of religious sentiment, that Stalin used in rallying the Russians against the German invasion. The reversal of Marxism started much earlier, however, as an outraged Trotsky had fumed.
“The rehabilitation of the Russian Majority was accompanied by the revival of anti-Semitism,” Robertson wrote. “The Russian people had never been happy about the disproportionate number of Jews in the revolution.” “Anti-Semitism became an important tool” for Stalin in the control of the Communist party, presumably a reference to Stalin’s purging of Trotsky and his followers and of Zinoviev, Kamenev, et al. Robertson also claims that anti-Semitism became overt after World War II, referring to the closing of synagogues and Jewish cultural associations, culminating in the so-called “Doctors’ Plot” in 1953. He stated that since no Jew has been a member of the Central Committee since the ouster of Kaganovich in 1957, it could be assumed that Stalin’s anti-Semitic position had been maintained.
Robertson’s position unsurprisingly drew criticism from other quarters of the Right. In 1974 Robertson followed up with a small volume answering the major criticisms The Disposessed Majority had received. Called Ventilations, the first chapter was entitled “The Kremlin and the Jews.” Robertson explained in a preamble to the chapter: “Of all the criticism heaped upon The Dispossessed Majority – and there has been considerable – the greater part has been with the book’s treatment of Christianity and what it says about the decline of Jewish power in Russia.”
Robertson began by reiterating what he’d said in The Dispossessed Majority about the elimination of Trotskyists and the rehabilitation of the Russian Majority and its institutions. He stated that “it is hard for a veteran anti-communist, who is often a veteran anti-Semite, to admit suddenly that a drastic change has taken place in his ancient bugaboo.” Robertson belittled the evidence that orthodox anti-Semites mustered to prove that the USSR remained under Jewish control. If there were Jews in more influential places in the USSR, Robertson believed, the Soviet leadership would highlight the fact to counter anti-Soviet propaganda regarding anti-Semitism, but the Russians could only come up with a few Jewish descended functionaries and artists. Robertson, somewhat reminiscent of Farrel at Common Sense, castigated the old conservatives such as William Buckley for continually focusing on a Russian communist threat:
When the Jewish propaganda mills are cranking out anti-Russian hate articles day and night in order to involve us in a Middle East confrontation with Russia, it is somewhat confusing for the rock-ribbed anti-Semites to keep informing us that Jews and Russians are joined in a secret alliance.
Robertson cited a particularly controversial book of the time published in 1969 by The Publishing House for Political Literature, entitled Caution, Zionism! By Yuri Ivanov, the chief Soviet expert on Israel. It is certainly a book that examines the history of the Jews in much detail, and would be a rather self-destructive ploy if it was a secret contrivance by Jews covertly running the USSR and juts out to fool the goyim. The reader is invited to read this now hard to obtain book online here. (This writer recalls as a youngster what a furor was caused when Caution, Zionism! was exhibited at the Soviet display at the annual “Trade Fair” that was held at Wellington, New Zealand.)
Robertson published his own periodical, Instauration, explicating the themes of The Dispossessed Majority. He published items in Instauration confirming his analysis of the USSR and the Jews. One particularly interesting reference is an item citing Pionerskaya Pravda, the paper of the 10,000,000 member Young Pioneers, the October 10, 1981 issue of which carried an article that stated, “the major portion of American newspapers and television and radio companies are in Zionist hands.” Robertson stated that the article claims “Jewish bankers and billionaires” were behind the Jewish Defense League, “which terrorizes Soviet diplomats and other Soviet officials in the United States.” Pionerskaya claimed that “most of the biggest monopolies for the production of weapons are controlled by Jewish bankers. Business and blood bring them enormous profits.” The themes were very similar to those expressed by Ivanov in the widely distributed Caution, Zionism! A previous issue of Instauration had referred to “a prominent Russian political analyst,” Vallery Emelyanov, submitting a paper to the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet, accusing the Soviet Jews of “forming a fifth column” whose loyalties would be in doubt should there be a war, comparing the situation to that of the Volga Germans during the World Wars. The aim of Emelyanov’s paper was to call for a world anti-Zionist front.
With demise of the USSR, anti-Zionist ideologues, academics, activists, and bureaucrats of the old Soviet regime entered the new dispensation. Today the Russians are surely the best-informed people in the world on Jewish matters, a legacy maintained since Soviet days. The Russian Ministry of International Affairs, for example, publishes articles on the “new world order” and the contrived “velvet revolutions” in North Africa that are only available in the Western world through dissident publications. The fight against the largely Jewish “oligarchs” who arose after the dismantling of the USSR under Gorbachev and Yeltsin, is a continuation of the struggle against Zionism and plutocracy begun under Stalin.
The destruction of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact, which were the only hindrance to US hegemony (or Chinese, for that matter), was achieved through a combination of Western based globalist NGOs and the contrivance of Mikhail Gorbachev, whose eightieth birthday was recently celebrated with Hollywood “stars” and his good friend, Israeli president Shimon Peres, who said Gorby was “a good friend to the Jewish people,” for allowing many Soviet Jews to make aliyah under his rule.
The same elements that spent decades trying to undermine the USSR, and eventually succeeded, are now trying to destroy any chance of Russian renewal. The rhetoric of the Cold War has returned. The globalists fear that Putin is showing “neo-Stalinist” tendencies, and they may be right, for as under Stalin, Russia is again emerging as the primary stumbling block to the implementation of globalist designs.
See the endnotes in the original article (here, here and here).
Don’t miss also the commentariat section, where Michael O’Meara stated: “I thought this a marvelous piece of scholarship — with an argument that could change the prevailing ideological paradigms.”