web analytics
Categories
Mauricio (commenter) Vladimir Putin

Purifying Slavs

Or:

The perfect response to Putin’s POV

‘A true Ukrainian Hitlerist would venerate the Aryan race as superior, and recognise that a great opportunity to cleanse their blood of gook sludge was lost when the Russians killed the conquering Germans in WW2. There had never been such an attempt to purify the Slav peoples, who were content to live debased under Boyar rule’. —Mauricio

Categories
'Hitler' (book by Brendan Simms) Esau's Tears (book) Red terror

Hitler, 6

Before continuing with Simms’ book, there is something I would like to clarify about the Gemlich letter which, as Brendan Simms said in the previous installment of this series, is Hitler’s first surviving political text.

Why did Hitler suddenly mention the Jews in September 1919? In Mein Kampf he confesses that he transvalued his values concerning the Jewish Question. Starting on page 52 in Ralph Manheim’s translation, he wrote:

For the Jew was still characterised for me by nothing but his religion, and therefore, on grounds of human tolerance, I maintained my rejection of religious attacks in this case as in others. Consequently, the tone, particularly that of the Viennese anti-Semitic press, seemed to me unworthy of the cultural tradition of a great nation. I was oppressed by the memory of certain occurrences in the Middle Ages [pogroms], which I should not have liked to see repeated.

On page 55, however, after realising how Jewry was behaving in Vienna, Hitler tells us:

My views with regard to anti-Semitism thus succumbed to the passage of time, and this was my greatest transformation of all. It cost me the greatest inner soul struggles, and only after months of battle between my reason and my sentiments did my reason begin to emerge victorious. Two years later, my sentiment had followed my reason, and from then on became its most loyal guardian and sentinel.

Below I reproduce excerpts from the chapters of Esau’s Tears that describe the conflict between the Jews and Austria and Germany. These excerpts will contextualise the information Simms mentions in his third Hitler chapter.

I apologise for the typos as I captured the text directly from Albert Lindemann’s book (published by Cambridge University Press, first edition: 1997). Although Lindemann is Jewish, his book shows that even before Hitler came to power, many patriots believed that Jews were taking over Germany and Austria. The quotes below from Lindemann’s book are so long (about 9,000 words) that I won’t indent them. Also, in the following excerpts I won’t put ellipses between uncited paragraphs. If the visitor doesn’t have time to read all of it, at least pay attention to what, way below, I highlighted in red:


 

Chapter 3. The appearance of modern anti-Semitism (1870-1890)

Germans and Jews

The nature of German-Jewish interplay is still bitterly debated—in particular the extent to which one can properly speak of mutual benefit and respect—but there is little doubt that nowhere else have Jacob and Esau [Lindemann’s metaphor for Jew and gentile—Ed.] had a more intricate, fecund, and yet finally tragic relationship. Nowhere was the rise of the Jews more notable, and nowhere was it more searchingly debated whether the nature of Jews was unchangeably foreign, undermining those among whom they resided, or adaptable and beneficial to the host people. Similarly, the possible ramifications of the notion of closeness are nowhere more clearly revealed than in the history of modern Germany, for growing numbers of Germans came to believe that they were somehow chosen by history for a special destiny.

Real issues were involved, issues that emerged from the concentration of Jews in certain occupations, from their related extraordinary economic and social success, and from a range of cultural traits that distinguished them from non-Jewish Germans.

German-speaking Jews were the largest and economically most successful population of assimilated Jews in Europe, and because of their important positions in the German economy, they were almost unavoidably identified with the Depression. Germany’s economy, or the economies of the various German states before unification, had been growing with remarkable, even breakneck speed in the 1860s, and it grew even faster in the early 1870s. Jews seemed to benefit disproportionately from that growth, and they were widely and plausibly (which is not to say justifiably) blamed for its sudden collapse.

For much of the 1880s and 1890s the first modern anti-Semitic movement found its most impressive and influential form in Germany. As noted, many Germans were inclined to see world-historical significance in the establishment of the German Reich; it represented a turning point in modern history. Even more grandiosely, some German nationalists believed the new Reich was the expression of divine purpose, an affirmation of the mission of the German spirit in the modern world. How unique or ‘special’ such beliefs were is debatable. We will see that the Jews in many countries, not only Germany, were inclined to see the rise of the Jews in modern times as expressing a divine purpose or a Jewish mission. Citizens of the United States, too, with their notions of Manifest Destiny, expressed a belief that they and the new American nation were agents of God’s will.

For such reasons, the wave of anti-Semitic indignation and rage that passed over Germany, and the efforts to give to that wave the form of a modern mass movement, caught the attention of the civilised western world.
 

German liberalism and the new German State

The liberal middle years of the century had seen the final steps in granting civil emancipation to Jews in most German-speaking lands, not without mean-tempered dissent from various quarters. Being counted among the most modern, most highly civilised nations was important to Germany’s elites; discriminatory laws against the Jews characterized the backward nations, such as Russia and Romania.

By the late 1860s liberal principles were given fuller application in many arenas besides those touching the condition of the Jews. Indeed, those general principles were the primary consideration; the emancipation of the Jews was seen as a necessary of them, much as was the case in the debates of the French National Assembly from 1798 to 1791.

In 1871 a number of important liberal principles were incorporated into the constitution of the new German Empire, such as the free trade, the rule of law, representative institutions, and guarantees of free speech. Religious freedom and Jewish equality under the law were also a part of the constitution.
 

The rise of the Jews in Germany

With the unification of Germany, Jewish wealth began to expand even more rapidly than before, and Jews began to move into a number of prominent positions in politics. However, until 1914 they remained almost completely excluded from the very highest and most prestigious positions of the state, as did most non-Jews without the proper pedigrees. Nonetheless, throughout the nineteenth century Jews continued to nurse hopes for an eventual change in such exclusionary practices; they persuaded themselves that much steady progress had been made and that the future was bright.

Banks, although less exclusively Jewish in Germany than elsewhere in central and eastern Europe, were still owned and operated by Jews (estimates range from forty to fifty percent, whereas Jews were one percent of the total population). The man reputed to be the richest in Germany was the Jewish banker Gerson Bleichröder.

Jews in Germany moved rapidly into the professions. Upwardly mobile Gentiles, or those who hoped for upward mobility in their children, encountered a most unwelcome competition to get into medical school or law school; Jews in those schools became overrepresented, often by ten, twenty, even thirty times their numbers on German society.

The liberal press was overwhelmingly in the hands of the Jews. It was an arena ‘in which Jewish intellectuals could be active in an unhampered way’.
 

The Mittelstand and modernism in Germany

In literature and many other arts Jews were prominent in modernist trends, not only in Germany but in most other countries. Modernism was characterized by a contempt for traditional aesthetic norms; modern art became ever more divorced from what ordinary people could appreciate, ever more disdainful of popular tastes, ever more ‘difficult’. Those arguing for an ‘organic’ Aryan art, one that had roots in the traditional peasant communities of Germany, could see modern art as inorganic, market-driven, cosmopolitan—and Semitic.

The image of modernist Jews as ‘culture destroyers’ reflected an undeniable reality; however much exaggerated by anti-Semites. The disproportionate numbers, visibility, and volubility of Jews in modern art roughly corresponded to the disproportionate numbers of Jews in journalism, medicine, law, banking and revolutionary politics.
 

The ‘Founding Years’ and the Crash of 1873

Nouveaux riches of whatever origin have rarely been known for gracious manners. Those Jewish newly rich in Germany who had recent origins in the eastern European shtetlekh, where standards of civility or public manners were markedly different from those of Germany, were widely regarded as especially offensive.

In Germany during the early seventies, the contrasts between rich and poor, successful and unsuccessful, were perhaps even more striking than in the opening stages of England’s industrialization. In the summer of 1873 the stock markets collapsed. Certain anti-Semitic themes took on particularly sharp expression by the late 1870s. Now it was declared that Jews, constituting a mere one percent of the population, were more than ‘too influential’; they were talking over the new German nation, its economy, its political institutions, its art and music.
 

The press campaign against the Jews

The popular (circulation ca. 350,000) and generally liberal magazine Die Gartenlaube published a series of articles in December 1874 by Otto Glagau exposing the role of various shady entrepreneurs in the stock market crash. He maintained that ninety percent of brokers and stock promoters in the capital were Jews.

A century later, when it became clear that the stock market scandals of the mid-to-late 1980s in the United States saw an overwhelming preponderance of Jews—at least ninety percent was a widely accepted figure—that clear correlation seemed to interest the broad American public scarcely at all, and overwhelmingly non-Jewish journalists and politicians skirted the issue. But in Germany in the 1870s popular interest and indignation were intense. By no means all Germans agreed with Glagau. He responded that ‘No longer can we suffer to see the Jews push themselves everywhere to the front… everywhere seize leadership and dominate public opinion’.
 

Chapter 4. Anti-Semitic ideology and movement in Germany (1879 to the 1890s)

Wilhelm Marr

Wilhelm Marr has been given credit for coining the term ‘anti-Semitism’. His pamphlet The Victory of Jewry over the Germans has been described as the first anti-Semitic bestseller. He was married four times, the first three to Jewish women. He had intimate Jewish friends and was attacked for his supposed philo-Semitism.

Wagner, too, lamented as early as 1850 that Jews were taking over Germany. Both Wagner and Marr emphasized inherent and tenacious Jewish racial traits, ones that were destructive to Germans.

Marr [said that] wherever they go, Jews try to dominate and jewify the surrounding society. To do so is in their racial nature. It was a matter of victory or defeat—Jacob and Esau must fight to the finish, not work out ways in which they could live together. He noted that other peoples had indeed blended, had become German: the French Huguenots, the Wends, various Slavic peoples. But not the Jews. Marr concluded that the Jews are ‘stronger and tougher’ than non-Jews.

His biographer believes that his pessimism was genuine, that it reflected his belief that the Germany he loved was doomed. Without weapons, he noted, Jews had become the masters of Germany.
 

Heinrich von Treitschke

The complaints and laments of Glagau and Marr did not immediately alarm most Jewish observers, since the two could be easily dismissed as lowbrow, demagogic, and lacking respectability. Many influential Jewish observers considered Marr and his following not only beneath contempt but laughable. However, late in the same year and early in the next (1879-1880), Heinrich von Treitschke, the celebrated historian of Germany and popular university professor, published a series of articles critical of the role of Jews in Germany.

Treitschke expressed dismay over the persecution of Jews in history. He wrote that ‘there is no German commercial city that does not count many honourable and respectable Jewish firms’. Treitschke was a political liberal. How then, Treitschke earned such an evil reputation in many influential accounts of the origins of Nazism?

That the presence of newly-emancipated Jews in Germany could present a genuine problem, not a fantasy, was freely recognized by a number of thoughtful Jewish observers at this time, as in years past; Jews did indeed have significantly different cultural traditions from the rest of the population.

[Franz] Mehring complained that Jewish opponents of Treitschke engaged in ‘intellectual terrorism’, attempting as they did to smear as anti-Semitic anyone who expressed whatever critical reservations about the actions of the Jews. Treitschke’s consternation about Jewish influence also reflected his rising distaste for modern mass culture. He, like most educated Germans, felt an abhorrence for what he perceived as the Mishckultur (mongrel-culture) that was coming to characterize the United States in these years. They did not believe that the German spirit, in its barely achieved unity, could survive cultural pluralism—a chaotic and debilitating mongrelisation in their eyes—that seemed to be growing up in the New World.

Treitschke remarked: ‘Ours is a young country. Our country still lacks national style’. But the young German nation, divided and still unsure of itself, was being flooded ‘from the inexhaustible cradle of Poland’. Treitschke argued further that the materialism of the early 1870s, so threatening again to the moral tone of the young German nation, was significantly reinforced by Jews.

Treitschke complained that Jewish journalists had introduced an element of petty quarrelsomeness and intolerance, of a wholly one-sided sort: ‘About the shortcomings of the Germans or French, everybody could freely say the worst things, but if somebody dared to speak in just and moderate terms about some undeniable weakness of the Jewish character, he was immediately branded as a barbarian and religious persecutor by nearly all of the newspapers’.

Mehring also recognized a new temper, ‘a gifted, shrewd, tough-fibred race’ intoxicated with its new freedoms. Jews in Berlin had developed into ‘an expansive and explosive force which is hard to imagine for anyone who has not seen it with his own eyes’. On this point, Mehring found much agreement from German Jews themselves.
 

Treitschke and Graetz

Heinrich Graetz (1817-1891). His History of the Jews is still lauded by twentieth-century Jewish historians as one of the great nineteenth-century histories of the Jews. Graetz harboured a deep contempt for the ancient Greeks and considered contemporary European civilisation to be ‘morally and physically sick’. There was some substance in Treitschke’s charges: Graetz had written that Boerne and Heine had ‘renounced Judaism, but only like combatants who, putting on the uniform of the enemy, can all the more strike and annihilate him’.

In private correspondence, Graetz expressed his destructive contempt for German values and Christianity even more forthrightly. Treitschke was not far off base when he angrily noted that ‘the man shakes with glee every time he can say something downright nasty against the Germans’.
 

Anti-Semitic movement and countermovement

Agitators circulated the Anti-Semites’ Petition, which by October 1880 had gathered some 265,000 signatures. It charged that an ‘alien tribe’ in Germany had gained domination over the ‘Aryan race’. In order to combat the incursions of that tribe a number of measures were needed: (1) the limitation of Jewish immigration into Germany, (2) the exclusion of Jews from positions of high governmental authority, (3) a special census to keep track of Jews, and (4) the prohibition of Jews as teachers in elementary schools. This minimal program was moderate in that it looked to orderly action through the Reichstag, not to popular violence, not to chasing Jews out of Germany. Right-wing revolutionaries comparable to the Nazis were not common at this time and found only sporadic support among the masses.

In the elections of 1881, the left-liberals in Berlin, led to an important degree by Jews, totally overwhelmed Stoecker’s party. The Progressive Party gained thirty-three new seats. Bismarck evidently concluded that not much political mileage was to be had from even covert identification with the anti-Semites, and he let it be known that ‘I most decidedly disapprove of this fight against the Jews’. At the height of its popularity in the 1880s political anti-Semitism in Germany won scarcely five percent of the popular vote.

None of the various bills proposed by the anti-Semites came anywhere near passage in the Reichstag, Jewish rights were in no tangible way limited by political measures in these years, and anti-Semites seeking to foment violence were arrested and thrown into jail. The various economic boycotts proposed by German anti-Semites had little or no effect; Jews continued to prosper and were increasingly among the very richest of Germany’s citizens.
 

The peasants and Otto Böckel

Anti-Semitism mitigated by traditional constraints existed among the peasantry, a large class that cannot be ignored, since it was among elements of peasantry that the most dramatically successful anti-Semitic movement in late nineteenth-century Germany developed. And among the peasants one of the more colourful and charismatic anti-Semitic leaders appeared: Otto Böckel.

As he recorded in his pamphlet The Jews, Kings of our Time, ‘the image of the peasant robbed by the Jews drives me onward’. The pamphlet went through a hundred editions by the end of the century.

Böckel used pomp and fanfare, mass meetings, torchlight rallies, songfests, and sloganeering with great creativity. He established a newspaper that reached thousands of peasants who had never before read newspapers, and advertised ‘Jew-free’ markets. Some called him a ‘second Luther’.

The situation, while in some ways unique, was also familiar: Jews under progressive rule prospered, while non-Jews believed themselves threatened with ruin, especially during an economic downturn. Böckel offered the same warnings, that a ‘stubborn, old, and thoroughly alien race’ was taking over; that modern capitalism was weakening the very backbone of Germany.

Böckel avoided using such terms as ‘Aryan’ and ‘Semite’. Nevertheless, his movement finally disintegrated. He simply did not have a long-range or realistic program; his was a movement of slogans and pyrotechnics, emotional catharsis for his followers, not long-range political realism.
 

Chapter 6. Austria-Hungary

Liberalism and the rise of the Jews

These Jewish successes were less widely shared by members of the Gentile lower and lower-middle classes. Similarly, Jews did not become, or long remain, artisans, factory proletarians, or other kinds of manual labourers. Urban Jews were in general upwardly mobile; non-Jews were more often proletarianized—overwhelmed by the forces of modern urban civilisation. Tens of thousands of small shops in Vienna went bankrupt in the latter half of the nineteenth century, and thousands of peasants’ plots in the surrounding countryside were put up for auction. The benefactors of these Gentile misfortunes were frequently Jews.

By the turn of the century, a German-Jewish writer who had moved to Vienna from the German Reich was struck by how much

all public life was dominated by Jews. The banks, the press, the theatre, literature, social organizations, all lay in the hands of the Jews… The aristocracy would have nothing to do with such things… The small number of untitled patrician families imitated the aristocracy; the original upper-middle class had disappeared… The court, the lower-middle class and the Jews gave the city its stamp. And that the Jews, as the most mobile group, kept all the other in continuous motion is, on the whole, not surprising.

Henry Wickham Steed, correspondent for The Times of London in Berlin, Rome, and Vienna from 1896 to 1914, and widely recognized as one of the best informed, most pertaining observers of the day, wrote that ‘among the peoples of the Austria-Hungary the Jewish people stands first in importance… Economics, politically, and in point of general influence they are… the most significant element in the Monarchy’. Moreover, embracing German language and culture by no means meant merging into German-Gentile society. Time and again assimilated Jews themselves referred to the Jews’ ‘stubborn emphasis on racial solidarity’.

It seems reasonable to conclude that any group, even one enjoying wide esteem, that rose as fast as the Jews in Austria-Hungary would have encountered some resentment and hostility.
 

The Jewish press and the crash of 1873

No area of Jewish influence in Austria-Hungary was more important than journalism in terms of spreading German language and culture—with a Jewish nuance. Jewish-owned and -operated newspapers in the empire were even more important than in Germany. ‘After Moritz Benedikt [the owner of Neue Freie Presse], the most popular man in the realm is Franz Joseph [the emperor of Austria]’ was a popular witticism. He and his paper were admired by some, feared or detested by others. Nearly all observers regarded him as a man of fierce ambition and easy morals.

The complaint that Jewish journalists were vituperatively critical while remaining hypersensitive to criticism themselves was often expressed in Austria. Wickham Steed described the Neue Freie Presse as ‘a journal that embodies in concentrated form and, at times, with demonic force, the least laudable characteristics of Austro-German Jewry’.

The stock market crash in 1873, which catalysed political anti-Semitism in Germany, affected Austria in similar ways. Jews were the obvious culprits, even more so in Vienna than in Berlin, since Jews in the stock market in Vienna were even more prominent than in Berlin. In Austria the capitalist robber barons, to borrow a phrase from the American scene, the railroad-building and factory-owning plunderers of the countryside, the noveaux riches, those ostensibly responsible for the bankruptcies of artisans and small retailers, the deceivers of the small investor were overwhelmingly made up of Jews, if only because Jews constituted a heavy majority of those involved in such modern economic activities.
 

Anti-Semitic ideology

Friedrich Austerlitz asserted that the Jewish-owned liberal press was concerned to serve Jewish interests, to cover up misdeeds by Jewish capitalists, and to shower with abuse anyone who criticized Jews. Jewish press supremacy, he later observed, ‘was a conspiracy in favour of the Jews; the legend of the solidarity of all members of the people of Israel was at that time a reality’. Austerlitz granted that in the earlier part of the century, when Jews had been oppressed, criticism of their ‘eccentricities’ was inappropriate, but by the latter half of the nineteenth century, when they dominated so much of public life in Austria and when their activities were so often corrupt, criticism was not only appropriate but the duty of all honest observers, Jews and non-Jews.

The notion of racial purity, of Aryan superiority, gained an even stronger hold on parts of the Austrian German-speaking Gentile population than it did in Germany itself. Similarly, in Austria fears about the ‘destructive mission’ of Jews, their alleged tendencies to take over, dominate, and jewify, were even more pervasive.

Any synthesis of German and Jewish culture implied a distinctly larger Jewish component, an unacceptable result to many völkish Germans, who seem to have been driven, ostensibly because of the elusiveness of what it meant to be a German in the Austrian context, to an almost panicked assertion of the need to preserve the mystical ‘purity’ of their race. They dreaded a loss of identity, a so-major dilution of what it meant to be a German that the world would lose its appeal for them. Feelings of German nationalism in Austria came increasingly to include a call for liberation from Jewish influence, a freeing of the Aryan-German spirit from the destructive inroads of ‘Semitism’.

Above all in Vienna and Budapest, assimilated, secular Jews were for traditional Catholics a formidable and alarming enemy. Jews were very rapidly increasing in numbers, and some were becoming spectacularly rich. They were articulate in ways that made many of their opponents feel the rage of impotence. As far as many Catholics were concerned, Jews were not only taking over modern economic life; they were also talking over the cultural life of the empire.
 

Catholic anti-modernism and anti-Semitism

For large numbers of Austrian Catholics, Jews became ‘the enemy’ to be vigorously combated, and large numbers of Jews felt similarly about the church. The sophisticated, cosmopolitan, atomistic, and materialistic life of the modern city symbolized a world of evil and moral anarchy—prostitution, corruption, drunkenness, social and economic irresponsibility—for the Church, whereas for secular Jews the church was a repository of bigotry and unreasoning fear of the modern world.

In 1870 the doctrine of papal infallibility was proclaimed. One of the most penetrating Catholic social theorist of the time, Baron Karl von Vogelsang, hoped for a return to an idealized past, whereas Marx confidently predicated a transformed, if no less idealized, future. In their descriptions of liberal capitalism, however, they were in agreement: It was a system of unbridled egotism, and they were both inclined to derive anti-Semitic conclusions from that judgment.

Vogelsang further concluded that liberal rules favoured Jews, allowing them to prosper extraordinarily and unjustly. Jewish prosperity, he observed, was paralleled by growing misery for the Christian lower orders. And that could hardly be accepted by a Christian as natural to the proper order of things.

Vogelsang lamented that Austria had lost its Christian bearing, had lost sight of the basis on Christian morality for social harmony. The country’s indigenous Christian population was being ‘robbed, dominated, and reduced to pariahs by the Jews’. The problem was not only exploitative Jewish capitalists; the ‘incredible insolent Jewish press’ worked constantly to undermine the moral fabric of a society, as did the atheistic Jews at the head of the revolutionary parties.

Vogelsang was not a racist; he welcomed Jewish converts. He believed, however, that unconverted Jews could inflict and undermine an entire society if they were allowed to get out of control. And he was persuaded that just such an infected society had come into existence: ‘If by some miracle’, he wrote, ‘all our 1,400,000 Jews were to be taken from us, it would help us very little, for we ourselves have been infected with the Jewish spirit’. The taste for pushing and shoving, the mocking of sacred tradition, the sardonic wit and intellectual arrogance, the sensuality and sexual immorality—these many ‘Jewish’ traits had infected Catholics in Austria and were fatally undermining Christian society.

Vogelsang was willing to grant that capitalism and its associated modern industrial techniques could increase material wealth, but the price paid in moral terms, he believed, was too high. It meant the breakdown of the family, alcoholism, and urban crime; the replacement of quality production by the cheap and shoddy; swelling ranks of the chronically unemployed; and the bars, cabarets, and prostitutes. Capitalism and liberalism atomized society, destroyed valuable social and economic ties.

Modern secular Jews could be credited with bringing progress, new industrial techniques, scientific discoveries, cultural sophistication, and a new intensity and richness to life in cities like Vienna. They could also be credited with exploitation, corruption, crime, prostitution, alcoholism, social disintegration, and cultural nihilism. Both views had some basis in reality: ‘Progress’ and ‘corruption’ went hand-in-hand in nearly every country, whether or not Jews were present.

In the early 1880s, particularly in the year 1882, the Austro-Hungarian Empire experienced an upsurge of popular hostility to Jews, much exceeding that in Germany, although not as physically violent as in pogrom-afflicted Russia.

Georg Ritter von Schönerer, in what might be interpreted as a rebellion against the world of his father, began to use language attacking the Jews that went much beyond anything so far heard in respectable circles. He spoke in coarse and brutal tones, with violent threats and violent actions.
 

Chapter 10. The Belle Époque: Germany and Austria

‘Morality aside, the enmity against the Jews is nonsense, because it is simply impractical. Everybody I know here in Berlin, especially the military and nobility, are eminently dependent upon the Jews and are daily becoming more so. There is no other way but to hold one’s tongue’.

—Theodor Fontane

Enough has been said about Germany and Austria to make clear how they might be considered, already in the 1880s, failures as models of harmonious Jewish-Gentile relationships. On the other hand, millions of German-speaking Jews and Gentiles continued to live beside one another in reasonable harmony, Jewish material success continued at an impressive rate, and Jewish-Gentile interplay counted many impressive aspects. Many of those in the German-speaking world who spoke out in criticism of the Jews were not willing to go beyond mere exhortation, urging the Jew to improve manners and economic morality or encouraging them to become more whole-hearted in their national feelings. Antiliberal trends become stronger everywhere after 1890, and highlighted tensions between Jews and non-Jews could be noted in nearly all countries. But those tensions often took on curiously unfathomable forms.
 

The appearance of Zionism

Gentiles earnestly believed that they and their values had been rejected by Jews, that Jews were not living up to the concessions they implicitly accepted when they gained civil emancipation.

The familiar distinction that religion was a private matter, one that was compatible with various nationalities, which satisfied many Jews in earlier years, began to appear unworkable or at least very awkward in practice. The dialogue of the deaf between Jew and non-Jew ultimately went back to the flawed assumptions, on both sides, of civil emancipation in the first place. The honeymoon was over; divorce was being contemplated. But its costs promised to be terribly high, and the decision was being avoided—perhaps something could still be worked out.

Theodore Herzl [1860-1904] wrote to a friend that his book had earned him the ‘greatest of hatreds [from fellow Jews] while the anti-Semites treat me fairly’. That ‘fair treatment’ constituted one of the earliest examples of what would later become fairly common, that is, open agreement, even an occasional, opportunistic kind of cooperation, between Zionists and some anti-Semites, since they both agreed that Jews should get out of Europe.

The impact of Zionism on non-Jews was also mixed: While anti-Semites pointed to it as evidence that they had been right all along, other non-Jews saw Zionism as a potentially acceptable solution to the Jewish problem.
 

Anti-Semitism and German tradition

As historian Steven Beller has commented, ‘Jews began to see themselves as the real bearers of the Enlightenment’ in Austria and Germany. The matter was stated quite openly in a speech by Solomon Ehrmann to the B’nai B’rith in Vienna in 1902. His vision of the future was not simply one in which Jews were to be an honoured part; it was to be in fundamental ways a Jewish future, one in which ‘not only the B’nai B’rith but all Judaism will have fulfilled its task. All mankind will have been jewified [verjudet, the same term used by the anti-Semites] and joined in union with the B’nai B’rith’. In short, Verjudung meant Aufklaerung, jewfication equalled enlightenment. It was in truth a broad and humane vision, but it cannot come as a surprise that many non-Jews were wary of it.

Racism and anti-Semitism were, in the eyes of many German-speaking Jews, more accurately seen as products of reactionaries and of the mob. Hatred of Jews, they believed, was most typically to be found in eastern Europe, or in the less developed parts of the German-speaking world.

There had been a wave of anti-Semitic agitation in Germany from the mid-1870s to the early 1880s, which then receded in the mid-1880s. Another wave gathered force in the late 1880s through the first years of the 1890s, with a high point in the elections of 1893, but it, too, receded, leaving the anti-Semitic parties more discredited and weaker than ever. The next twenty years were similarly indecisive.
 

The dormant period of anti-Semitism in Germany

The Wilhelmine period (1890-1914) has gone down in most histories as a relatively dormant period insofar as political anti-Semitism is concerned. [But] the decline of the anti-Semitic parties by no means necessarily indicated a decline in anti-Semitic sentiment.

Anti-Semitism of the Tivoli Program was not radical. (In it the party denounced ‘the multifarious and obtrusive Jewish influence that decomposes our people’s life’; a clause was voted down that said ‘we repudiate the excesses of anti-Semitism’.) That the latter clause was even proposed suggested that many leaders of the Conservative Party were not anti-Semitic in the radical-racial sense. A number of the party’s leading figures had Jewish wives.

The fact remains that the Conservative Party, the anti-Semitic pressure groups, and the anti-Semitic parties themselves were either unwilling or unable to pass a single piece of significant legislation against the Jews in Germany. The material welfare of the Jews in Germany, at the same time, continued its remarkable, seeming inexorable force. The so-called ‘dormant’ period after 1900 was only the lull before the storm.
 

Anti-Semitic agitation in Austria: Karl Lueger

As we have seen, anti-Semitism in Austria had a significantly broader, more ‘progressive’ appeal in the 1870s and 1880s than it did in the German Reich. In the generation before World War I anti-Semitism in Austria, especially Vienna, was far from politically dormant.

It will be recalled that von Schönerer’s movement suffered a sharp and humiliating decline after its initial success of the 1880s. He was arrested, thrown into jail, and stripped of his title of nobility. Within a short time, however, political anti-Semitism found a more adept practitioner in the person of Karl Lueger, far and away the most successful anti-Semitic politician of pre-war Europe.

Like von Schönerer, Karl Lueger began his political career as a liberal but then turned against key liberal tenets. Mention has been made of Treitschke’s aversion to the ‘jewified’ German culture of Austria, of Gratez’s desire to ‘destroy’ Christianity, of Hess’s opinion that Christianity was ‘religion of death’, and Ehrmann’s conclusion that ‘jewification equals enlightenment’. Many other Enlightened Jews saw themselves as upholders of justice, as a ‘light unto the nations’ in a modern way. The theme was endlessly manipulated, and it found expression in nearly every country, but the relevant point is that ‘jewification’ was actually more than an absurd fantasy of the anti-Semites. Leading German Jews in Vienna did look to a jewification of the non-Jewish world. On the other hand, it does not take much imagination to understand how alien and hypocritical such an ideal may have seemed to the average citizen in Vienna at the turn of the century, especially when, in its immediately perceptible form, jewification seemed to mean financial scandals, unfair competition, and the revolver press, social exclusiveness, and capitalist exploitation.

Even while Lueger was mayor, Jews continued to move into the city at a rapid rate, Jewish upward mobility continued unabated, and Jewish wealth remained impressive. The period considered the ‘Golden Age of Viennese Jewry’ (1897-1910) coincided with the years that Lueger was mayor. One needs to ask what the ‘success’ of Lueger’s movement actually entailed. In truth, his anti-Semitism was mostly noise. The period of his ascendency marked an end to the honeymoon of Jewish-Gentile relations, but Lueger did not hate all Jews. He never looked forward to a Vienna that would be judenrein (free of Jews).
 

Langbehn, Lagrade, Chamberlain

Houston Steward Chamberlain’s Foundations of the Twentieth Century (first published in 1900 but many editions followed, including an inexpensive one in 1906 that was distributed in Germany’s schools) became a hugely popular book by the standards of the day. Its success was all the more remarkable because, by the standards of any day, it was a lengthy tome that made large intellectual demands on its readers. And whatever may be said about the defects of the book, it grappled with many substantial issues. Emperor Wilhelm II read it avidly; he quoted it constantly and sent copies to friends and acquaintances. To be sure, Wilhelm was not an intellectually distinguished or discriminating man, but among the many others who openly and effusively admired the book were Albert Schweitzer, Winston Churchill, George Bernard Shaw, D.H. Lawrence, and Carl Becker. In his book Chamberlain tried to show, with richly arrayed historical examples, how racial determinism had operated from the distant past to the present. The racial element explained the rise and fall of civilisations, the particular genius of cultures throughout history. Like Gobineau, he was much concerned with racial mixing and the degeneration that he believed came from it.

Chamberlain’s biographer has persuasively argued that in spite of repeated denials, he harboured a tenacious if fluctuating animus against Jews, one that found clearest expression in private communications, especially after 1914, as his health and fortunes declined. The point made earlier about Treitschke (that he had no real program and did not support political action against Jews) holds even more for Chamberlain. He spoke of an inner, spiritual struggle against Jewish influence, not a physical battle against Jewish individuals or groups.

Nationalists in many areas feared that their identity was being overwhelmed and all urged against the forces that were undermining the true identity of their people.
 

Chapter 12: World War I

One cannot help but be impressed with the far-ranging ways in which fears and resentments were finding focus in anti-Semitism: Jews as shirkers at the front; Jews as weak-kneed parliamentarians and pacifist press lords; Jews as capitalists making money from the war; Jews as all-powerful and self-serving bureaucrats in the government; Jews as treacherous revolutionaries; even Jews as rank-and-file workers who were especially prone to destructive radicalism. The old anti-Semitic refrain—‘the Jew is everywhere’—gained unparalleled plausibility in Germany and began to attract a larger part of the population than even before.
 

The Peace Settlement

Civilian control of the military prevailed in both France and Great Britain, and in neither country was the tendency to point an accusing finger at Jews as in Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Russia.

In Great Britain the Jewish World commented, in response to an anti-Semitic exchange in the columns of the London Times, that Jews faced ‘the beginning of a new and evil era. We cannot say any more that there is no anti-Semitism in the country that loved the Bible above everything’.

The entry of the United States [into World War I] in the spring of 1917, gradually tipped the balance in favour of France and Great Britain. That victory was finally achieved in the autumn of 1918 after internal upheavals in Germany brought to the fore those who were willing to negotiate a peace.

For the anti-Semitic right in German-speaking central Europe, America’s alliance with the French and the English meshed into a by now well-established image of Jewish-controlled powers that were conspiring to destroy Germany. The pre-war assertion by men like Treitschke, Langbehn, and Chamberlain that the English and the Americans were shallow, commercial minded and materialistic—Jewish in spirit—was now made even more adamantly. Chamberlain, in a letter to Wilhelm II, wrote that ‘England has fallen totally into the hands of the Jews and the Americans. This war is in the deepest sense the war of Jewry [Judentum] and its near relative, Americanism, for the control of the world’.

When the Germans agreed to an armistice, they thought that it could be in accordance with Wilson’s Fourteen Points. They were tragically mistaken.

The Paris Peace conference that gathered in early 1919 oversaw the redrawing of the map of most Europe and large parts of the rest of the world. The Jewish Question was on the agenda at Paris, one of a large number of nettlesome issues, seemingly impossible to resolve in a way that would be just to all concerned. The German quickly labelled it a ‘Jewish peace’, not only because they believed it vindictive, which it unquestionably was, but because they were persuaded that it meant even greater Jewish power in the post-war world.

Again, their fantasy world found much in the real world to nourish it. Even many of those who were not notably anti-Semitic viewed the peace settlement as part of a titanic struggle between German and Anglo-American values. Germans saw themselves as an idealist, disciplined, self-sacrificing people facing peoples devoted to shallow liberalism and egotism. Those Germans who had put faith in Wilson’s points believed themselves cynically betrayed. In their eyes, the final ‘dictated peace’ (Diktat) was an act of unspeakable perfidy. A number of smaller adjustments favouring Germany’s neighbours only added to the sense of impotent outrage in Germany. The worst outrage in the eyes of many Germans was the huge reparation payments with which they were saddled.

Most Germans concluded that these measures were designed not only to punish but to ultimately destroy their country. Enormous debate emerged at the time and for many years afterward about the wisdom and justice of these draconian arrangements. Those Germans leaders who eventually agreed to work within the terms of the treaty did so not because they accepted them as reasonable but because they finally saw no realistic alternative.

 
The Balfour Declaration and the Palestinian Mandate

Churchill and others argued that Jewish financial clout and the control of the news media by Jews were compelling reasons to have them on Great Britain’s side. Churchill was particularly concerned to rally American Jews. Other British leaders worried about the reaction of the indigenous Arab population in Palestine, and those who knew something about the population warned that British support for a Jewish national home in Palestine risked permanently alienating the Arab world, with disturbing long-term implications for British national interest.

In a letter published in the London Times on May 24, 1917, the presidents predicted that a Jewish homeland in Palestine would be a ‘calamity’. It would be a dangerous violation of the principle of equal rights if Jews in Palestine were to get special political privileges and economic preferences. Prophetically, the letter warned that the result would be endless, bitter warfare with the Arabs of the region. Churchill’s comments in 1919: ‘We are pledged to introduce the Jews into Palestine, and they take it for granted that the local population will be cleared out to suit their convenience’.

As suggested in the Preface, it would be grotesque to argue that the hostility of the Arabs, this ‘anti-Semitism’ by Semites, was mysterious, having to do only with their own psychic problems and not at all with Jewish actions. At the same time, another bold experiment, which might be described as an utterly contrasting attempt to resolve the Jewish Question, had begun in Russia.
 

Chapter 13: Jews and [the Russian] Revolution

The horrors of the revolution from 1917 to 1921 were in some areas even more devastating than those of the war; the connections of Jews and socialist revolutionaries were more visible than ever before and the anti-Semitic potential greater. The perception that revolutionaries were predominantly Jewish and that Jews were particularly vicious as revolutionaries spread now from minds like those of Nicholas II—limited, paranoiac, almost pitiful—to those of a different cut, such as Woodrow Wilson and Winston Churchill. It was no longer only scandal sheets like La Libre Parole or the Bessarebetz that identified radical revolution with Jews; now that identification was made by newspapers like the London Times, the Chicago Tribune, or the Christian Science Monitor, all of which enjoyed a reputation for sobriety on Jewish issues and at least relative fairness.

Many of those who had been inclined to a hesitant or inconsistent anti-Semitism before the war, such as Wilhelm II, now embraced more extreme opinions. Wilhelm’s attitude to ‘the threat of international Jewry’ was influenced by reports like those of Walther von Kaiserlingk, the German admiralty’s chief of operations, who had visited Petrograd in the winter of 1917-18: He described the new government as run by Jews in the interest of Jews; it was ‘insanity in power’, and it presented a moral threat not only to Germany but to the civilised world. Wilhelm agreed that the Russian people had been ‘turned over to the vengeance of the Jews, who are connected with all the Jews of the world’.

We have seen how, in western countries where Jews experienced less oppression, an active and highly visible minority of them, especially young, secularized Jewish intellectuals in the generation before the war, were powerfully attracted to socialist ideas. Jews such as Hess, Marx, Lassalle, Bernstein, Otto Bauer, Luxemburg, Martov, Trotsky, and León Blum played a major role in formulating, refining, and propagating those ideas. Non-Jews (Engels, Kautsky, Bebel, Plekhanov, Lenin, Guesde, Jaurès) were also important, in many regards more important than Jews, but considering that the Jewish population of Europe was approximately 2 percent of the total, the Jewish participation in socialism, revolutionary and democratic, was remarkably large.

Both Jewish and non-Jewish socialists in the late nineteenth century saw great merit in the idealism and radicalism of a moral elite of Jews. Just as the non-Jew, Friedrich Engels, had praised Jews for their contribution to the socialist movement, so V.I. Lenin, in a speech in Zurich in 1905, observed that ‘the Jews furnished a particularly high percentage of leaders of the revolutionary movement. It should be noted to the credit of the Jews, they furnish a relatively high percentage of internationalists’. On another occasion Lenin, in lamenting the low moral and intellectual level of his compatriots, remarked to Maxim Gorky that ‘an intelligent Russian is almost always a Jew or somewhere with Jewish blood in his veins’. León Blum, who after his participation of the Dreyfus Affair went on to become a prominent figure in the French socialist movement, ‘glorified the messianic role of the Jews as social revolutionaries’. Although he was one of the most perceptive critics of Bolshevik theory in the debates within his own party in 1919 and 1920 concerning whether it should join the new Communist International, he had earlier written that ‘the collective impulse’ of the Jews ‘leads them toward revolution; their critical powers… drive them to destroy every idea, every traditional form which does not agree with the facts or cannot be justified by reason’. Revolutionary socialism, he asserted, was a modern form of ‘the ancient spirit of the Jewish race’.

Most Russian Jews were pulled unwillingly, even uncomprehendingly into the vortex of revolution and ensuing civil war from 1917 to 1921, observers rather than actors. But others, especially many who had felt blocked in their dreams of a career or who had suffered daily under the irrationality and inefficiency of the tsarist regime, were only too understandably moved by a desire for violent revenge. Some of those revolutionaries, especially when driven into the moral anarchy of civil war, proved themselves capable of breath-taking ruthlessness.

Recognizing that there were fewer Jews in the Bolshevik faction than in the Menshevik, or even that Bolshevism was not a typically Jewish ideology, does not mean that the issue of the role of Jews in Bolshevism is settled, for there were still many Jewish Bolsheviks, especially at the very top of the party. And there were even more in the dreaded Cheka, or secret police, where the Jewish revolutionary became visible in a terrifying form. Any effort to compose a list of the most important Bolsheviks must be unavoidable subjective, but it seems beyond serious debate that in the first twenty years of the Bolshevik Party the top ten to twenty leaders included close to a majority of Jews.

At a notch down in visibility was Yakov Mikhailovich Sverdlov. Described as ‘very Jewish looking’, he became secretary and main organizer of the Bolshevik Party in 1917. There was at any rate no little symbolism in the fact that a Jew was both the head of the state and the secretary of the ruling party. Percentages of Jews in state positions or in the party do not capture that adequately.

In approximately the same second-level category was Moisei Solomonovich Uritsky, notorious as the chief of the Cheka in Petrograd where Red Terror raged with special brutality. For anti-Semites he became the personification of ‘Jewish terror against the Russian people’. He was certainly less fanatical than Zinoviev [another Jew], whose pervasive cruelty and vindictiveness toward alleged counterrevolutionaries prompted Uritsky at one point to lodge an official complaint.

A list of prominent non-Jews in the party would begin with Lenin, whose name outweighs the others, although in the first year or so of the revolution, Trotsky’s name rivalled his. Yet his status as a non-Jew and ‘real Russian’ is not as clear as subsequent Soviet propaganda tried to make it. His grandfather on his mother side was Jewish, though a convert to Christianity and married to a woman of German origin. On Lenin’s father side were Kalmyk and Swedish forebears. Lenin the non-Jew, in other words, was Jewish enough to have fallen under the shadow of doubt in Nazi Germany or to have been accepted in the state of Israel.

Lenin was of course considered jewified, if not exactly Jewish, by anti-Semites. As noted, he openly and repeatedly praised the role of the Jews in the revolutionary movement; he was one of the most adamant and consistent in the party in his denunciation of pogroms and anti-Semitism more generally. After the revolution, he backed away from his earlier resistance to Jewish nationalism, accepting that under Soviet rule Jewish nationality might be legitimate. On his death bed, Lenin spoke fondly of the Jewish Menshevik Julius Martov, for whom he had always retained a special personal affection in spite of their fierce ideological differences.

An even more remarkable case was Felix Dzerzhinsky, the head of the Cheka, a ‘non-Jewish Jew’ in a different sense. (The destruction of his statue in front of the KBG building in Moscow in August 1991, after the ill-fated putsch by party conservatives, was widely seen as symbolic of the destruction of a hated past of secret police domination.) In origin a member of the Polish gentry, he had learned Yiddish as a young man in Vienna and had established close friendships with many Jews in the revolutionary circles of the town. He had several romances with Jews and finally married one.

The backgrounds and personal contacts of non-Jews such as Lenin, Kalinin, and Dzerzhinsky help explain how it was that so many observers believed the Bolsheviks were mostly Jews or were in some way under Jewish tutelage. The various refinements of Jewishness—traditional Jew, reform Jew, cultural Jew, half-Jew, non-Jewish Jew, self-hating Jew, Karaite, jewified Gentile—did not have much meaning to most of those who were in a life-and-death struggle with the Bolsheviks and who of course were not used to seeing Jews in any position of authority in Russia; to see them in such numbers spoke for some radical undermining of a previously accepted order. The leaders of the anti-Bolshevik White armies were convinced that they were fighting Jews and other foreigners (Georgians, Armenians, Lithuanians, Poles)—but most importantly Jews—who had somehow seized control of Mother Russia. To most of the Whites the differences between the various revolutionary factions were of little importance; they all appeared alien, foreign in inspiration, jewified, and destructive. Indeed, for many on the right even the liberal Kadets were viewed as westernized and jewified.

Such exaggeration was hardly limited to the White armies. One book published in the West, The Causes of World Unrest, presented a list of fifty members of the Bolshevik government and declared that 95 percent of them were Jews, a common conclusion, as was the notion that the Bolsheviks were murderously destructive.

Destruction of the Jews by the Nazis was from this perspective to be considered a preventive measure, ultimately one of self-defence [emphasis by Ed.]. As early as 1917, Belloc’s friend and intellectual colleague, C.K. Chesterton, had sternly warned the Jews in Great Britain who were sympathetic to the revolution that ‘if they continue to incite people against the soldiers and their wives and widows, they will learn for the first time what anti-Semitism really means’.

Anti-Semitism, well entrenched on the right, revived in the rest of the political spectrum, undermining what had been achieved through the patriotic unity of August 1914. The older charges that Jews were unpatriotic or part of the capitalist conspiracy now refocused on the Jew as a social subversive, ‘taking orders from Moscow’.

A revolutionary unrest spread to central Europe in late 1918 and 1919. The party’s first two leaders, Rosa Luxemburg and, after her murder in January 1919 at the hands of a right-wing paramilitary organization, Paul Levi, were of Jewish origin. Even in France and Italy, with their small and overwhelmingly bourgeois populations, the emerging Communist parties counted a number of Jews in hardship positions. ‘Foreign Jews, taking orders from Moscow’ became an issue.

A Communist coup was attempted in Berlin in January 1919 (the Spartacus Uprising, when Rosa Luxemburg was killed), and in the course of that tumultuous year in Germany pro-Bolshevik revolutionaries took over, however briefly and confusedly, in Munich. In France a general strike was launched in the spring of 1920, and in the autumn of that year there were massive factory occupations in the industrial north of Italy. Perhaps most worrisome to the western powers, the Red Army, headed by Trotsky, launched an offensive against Poland in the summer of 1920 that was touted as the beginning of a triumphant advance of the Red Army into western Europe.
 

Russian Jews in revolution: from March to November

One of the first measures taken by the Provisional Government was a decree conferring complete civil equality upon Russia’s Jews. That action was hailed as long overdue by the Russian press; even Novoe Vremia, which, as a semi-official organ before 1917, had often published anti-Semitic material, applauded the move.

Many of Russia’s Jews were jubilant at the news. In some Jewish homes, Passover was celebrated that year with the reading of the decree instead of the traditional Haggada. Plans were quickly made by Jewish activists for an all-Russian Jewish congress. The excited appeal that went out for it proclaimed that whereas elsewhere Jews had received civil equality, only now in revolutionary Russia were they also going to receive recognition of their separate nationality within another nation. Nothing finally came of this congress, since the Bolshevik Revolution, and then civil war, got in the way.

In Russia, perhaps even more than elsewhere, civil equality for Jews, to say nothing of an official recognition of Jewish nationality, opened up Pandora’s box. Jews who had faced pervasive discrimination and persecution suddenly found government positions opened to them while closed to the older privileged classes, who were overwhelmingly of Great Russian background. Still, after 1917, especially after November 1917, there was in Europe a most remarkable change in the status quo: Large numbers of individual Jews assumed, for the first time in modern history, a major role in the government of non-Jewish peoples. Such was the case not only in Russia but in other areas, most notably Hungary and Germany.
 

The Red Terror—a Jewish terror?

In some areas, for example, the Ukraine, the Cheka leadership was overwhelmingly Jewish. By early 1919 Cheka organizations in Kiev were 75 percent Jewish, in a city where less than a decade earlier Jews had been officially forbidden to reside, except under special dispensation, and constituted about 1 percent of the total population.

The pattern of employing non-Slavic ethnic minorities in the Cheka was duplicated in many other areas of Russia. George Leggett, the most recent and authoritative historian of the Russian secret police, speculates that the use of outsiders may have been a conscious policy, since such ‘detached elements could be better trusted not to sympathize with the repressed local population’.

It is instructive that the high percentage of Jews in the secret police continued well in the 1930s, when the population of Jews gradually diminished in most other areas of the Soviet and party cadres. The number of Jews involved in the terror and counterterror of this period is striking. These many Jewish terrorists helped to nurture, even when they killed Jewish Chekists, the belief that Jews, especially once they had broken from the confines of their traditional faith, turned naturally to fanaticism and anarchistic destructiveness.

An even more important institution than the Cheka in defending the revolution was the Red Army, and, again, Jews played a key role in its leadership. Trotsky fascinated a broad public inside and outside Russia. In Hungary, a Jewish observer who was in fact hostile to the Bolsheviks nonetheless write: ‘The evolutionary flame which has burned beneath the surface of world history is now blazing up for the first time in a Jewish genius: Leo Trotsky!’ According to Paul Johnson,

It was Trotsky who personally organized and led the armed uprising which actually overthrew the Provisional Government and placed the Bolsheviks in power. It was Trotsky who created the Red Army, and who ensured the physical survival of the new Communist regime during the Civil War.

Trotsky’s paramount role in the revolution cannot be denied; Johnson’s views even if exaggerated, underline how powerful and durable has been the mystique around Trotsky’s name. He was second to Lenin, but a strong second. There was no Jew in modern times, at least until the creation of the state of Israel, to rival him.

It has been claimed that the actual proportion of Jews in top party and state positions in the 1930s did not notably drop from the 1920s. However, ‘visible’ Jewish leaders, comparable to Trotsky, Zinoviev, or Uritsky, diminished in numbers and would continue to do so in subsequent years, so that by the mid-twentieth century there were almost no Jews among the highest officials in the Soviet Union. To state the obvious, Jews were never purged explicitly as Jews in the Soviet Union, and millions survived the worst years of Stalin’s terror.

Categories
Ukraine

Russia is winning

‘Russia is ready for a much larger conflict than Ukraine’

Categories
Ukraine War!

The Ukraine war

In his today’s article on Counter-Currents, Greg Johnson wrote:

How to end this war? If there were justice, Russia would go back to its 2013 borders, pay reparations, and put Putin’s head on a spike on the Kremlin wall.

Wow, just compare it not only with what Andrew Anglin writes these months about Russia and Putin but with several pro-Russian articles in The Unz Review.

This sort of thing makes me think that a PhD in philosophy like Johnson’s is not good for thinking straight. A young lad like Nick Fuentes has better instincts about the profound consequences of the Ukraine war than Dr Johnson.

The West’s Darkest Hour doesn’t usually talk about news unless it’s vital. Of the people I’ve been listening to over the last few months who seem to me to have the noblest political instincts on the Ukraine conflict, apart from Fuentes and Anglin, are TFM whom I talked about in my post yesterday, and Gonzalo Lira (see Lira’s new YouTube channel here).

Categories
Currency crash Ukraine

The situation in the Ukraine is an historical event of immense magnitude

by Andrew Anglin

Recently, some readers have complained to me that we are covering the Ukraine situation too closely, saying they are bored with the topic.

Mitch McConnell was right when he said the most important thing happening in the world is the Ukraine conflict. He was right for the wrong reasons, but he was right.

Someone is going to win this conflict, and someone is going to lose. The stakes could not be any higher. The future of the entire world now hinges on the outcome of this conflict. This is the single most consequential military conflict in all of human history.

If Russia loses, the Putin government will collapse, and the US will be able to steamroll the country, break it apart into several pieces. From there, the US will have China isolated, and then eventually break them. This will result in the final establishment of a singular world order run by the Jewish power centers in the United States, Europe, and Israel.

If the US loses the war, we are looking at a freefall collapse of the Western economic and military order, a rising China, and a reshuffling of the entire order of power on the planet earth.

The reason I support Russia is that I want the US empire to collapse.

If the dollar goes down and the US can no longer export debt to the world through the dollar reserve system, the US government will no longer have the ability to micromanage the lives of American citizens. They will not have the resources (you have to have a lot of excess money to inflict your will on the entire population, which is one reason why people are so much freer in third world countries). We will be free, and we will then be able to return to the natural order in our society, without Jews controlling everything, without trannies, without deadly fake vaccines, without mass immigration, without feminism.

Those are the stakes.

I would support Russia fighting against the NATO machine even if I did not like Russia’s politics. In the end, I don’t really care about Russia or China—I care about myself, my own friends and family, my own country. I view the world in terms of what is best for me, as is the natural way for anyone to view world events.

It is a self-evident fact that a collapse of the US as the dominant military power in the world will lead to a severe decline in the ability of the US government to inflict its will on the domestic population.

___________

Read it all: here.

Categories
Tischgespräche

The Führer’s monologues, 1

For the context of these translations click here,
for this monologue in German, here.

Part One: Table talks # 1-74
– 5 July to 31 December 1941 –

 

Führer Headquarters Saturday, 5 July 1941

What we lack, he said, is a clear presentation of the will to live, the way of life of der Völker [the Germanic peoples]. The difference between the fascist and the Russian people’s movements is that the fascist involuntarily followed the path of the old Roman community formation, while the Russian tended in the direction of anarchy.

The Russian does not, by nature, strive for higher forms of community. The people can also live in such a way that there is no grouping of family units into a whole; if Russia has a state form in the occidental sense, it’s merely the result of coercion.

In a certain sense all human culture, the beautiful, is a result of coercion, of what we call education; but the Aryan peoples have a disposition to activity. A man like Krümel[1] is active from morning till night, another is always thinking; the Italian is industrious as a bee; for the Russian, the highest cultural creation is vodka, the ideal: to always do only what is necessary. Work in our sense and even more work, such as an Aryan might demand from him, are a nuisance to him.

It is questionable whether one can get along in Russia without the priest; the Pope has comforted the Russian about the fact that he is condemned to work; in return, he will be well off in the afterlife. The Russian will work if he is under an iron organisation, but he is unable to organise himself. Only the drop of Aryan blood in individual veins is what has given the Russian people inventions and state organisation.

A just regime belongs to the strong hand of rulership, who presupposes this in every leadership. But just as the horse, if it isn’t constantly kept in check, throws away all training in a flash—in America a few horses had run away and a few decades later the country had enormous herds of wild horses. The horse found its way back to nature so quickly, so the primal urge to return to nature is also always present in the Russian. For him, these are the forms of life in which the family exists. Like a mother hare, the Russian will care for her children with everything that belongs to motherhood. But that’s all the Russian wants. His rebellion against the coercion of state organisation—and it always means coercion because it curtails the freedom of the individual—is brutal and blindly cruel, as is always the reaction of the women. If he fails in this, he breaks down in self-recriminations; it is in these revolutions that he strives back to nature. Thus nihilism remains the form of his revolution.

The boss also said:

He believes that there was still oil in a thousand places; in the case of coal, we know how the coal reserves decrease: cavities form. When it comes to oil, we don’t know whether the cavities won’t fill up again from reservoirs invisible to us.

Man is perhaps the most dangerous microbe imaginable. He takes the whole earth without asking whether there might be substances of vital importance for life in another region, which he looks with the microscope for the cause of devastation that is felt on the surface of the earth.

___________

[1] The cook in Hitler’s special train was known by this joking name.

Categories
2nd World War Americanism Degenerate art Democracy Evil Film Francis Parker Yockey Holocaust Mainstream media Philosophy of history Sexual degeneracy Who We Are (book)

Yockey on the United States

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

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

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

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

 

______ 卐 ______

 

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

The American ideology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The War of Secession, 1861–1865

Politics in America in the European sense there was none…

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

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

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

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

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

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

 
The history of American imperialism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The American Revolution of 1933

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

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

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

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

* * *

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

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

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

World-outlook

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * *

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Propaganda

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * *

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

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

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

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

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

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

The conduct of American foreign affairs from 1933

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The future of America

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

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

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

Categories
Americanism Free speech / Free press Real men Ukraine War!

Lavrov v. Uncle Sam

by Andrew Anglin

Editor’s Note:

When I first became involved in the issue of defending the West against the programme of soft genocide through mass migration, I noticed on anti-jihad forums that conservatives, many of them Christians, were spearheading the fight. So why do I insult Christians so much?

As one begins to deduce from a Swede’s seminal essay, ‘The Red Giant’, the problem is that liberal neochristianity (today’s Woke ideology) hypertrophied Christian ethics, albeit in a strictly secular way. That’s why non-liberal Christians like Anglin are in the vanguard, though they should be non-Christians like the late William Pierce. Le wokisme, as the French would say, drew on ideals dating from the French Revolution, which in turn drew on the gospel’s message (see my own take on the subject in ‘On empowering birds feeding on corpses’).

Anglin’s site, The Daily Stormer, has once again been taken offline by Thought Police, although his articles can still be read on The Unz Review. The one published today, ‘Lavrov: the Ukrainian operation is intended to end US world domination agenda’, is worth reproducing here without the garish images and screenshots of Anglin’s original article:

 

______ 卐 ______

 

I’ve only met two people in real life who were able to communicate this level of calm ferocity in their physiognomy and facial expression. One was my maternal grandfather, and the other was an Australian Vietnam veteran I met in a village in [redacted]. I did not ever have a meaningful conversation with either, as their consciousness appeared to exist on a separate plane of reality. The closest I have come to understanding the nature of this other plane is by playing Planescape: Torment [Ed.’s note: a role-playing video game].

Russia’s top diplomat has declared that the purpose of the special military operation in the Ukraine is to put an end to the US-dominated global order.

“Dicks out for Harambe,” Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov added, his countenance pointedly sangfroid, punctuating the earth-shattering implications of the unfolding global reorganization.

The Americans always used to laugh. They used to think it was a joke. They are actually still laughing now, and do not appear to have any comprehension of the gravity of the situation.

RT:

Russia’s military action in Ukraine is meant to put an end to the US-dominated world order, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has explained. Washington has been seeking supremacy by imposing ad-hoc rules and violating international law, he claimed, in an interview aired by Russian television on Monday.

He was referring to America’s attempts to impose its own so-called “rules-based international order,” which have met with strong resistance from Moscow and China.

“Our special military operation is meant to put an end to the unabashed expansion [of NATO] and the unabashed drive towards full domination by the US and its Western subjects on the world stage,” Lavrov told Rossiya 24 news channel.

“This domination is built on gross violations of international law and under some rules, which they are now hyping so much and which they make up on a case-by-case basis,” he added.

“Under some rules” strikes me as a bad translation.

As he continues, the “rules” are made up on a case-by-case basis, meaning they are not actually rules at all. When it comes to political jargon, Russian can be difficult to translate, and RT is not always sending their best (that’s not a diss – they have budgetary concerns and someone who speaks both perfect English and perfect Russian is expensive).

I am also seeing direct translations that state that Lavrov said Russia is “putting an end to the US plan for global domination,” which is probably a better translation than the above.

Regardless of the wording, this is the greatest statement I’ve heard from anyone in my life, and it is also the truest.

The only thing that could have made it better is if he would have literally ended the statements by breaking into English and saying “Dicks out for Harambe.”

Russia is among the nations who would not submit to Washington’s will, the Russian diplomat added. It will only be part of an international community of equals and will not allow Western nations to ignore its legitimate security concerns, Lavrov said.

Lavrov blasted EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell for appearing to encourage more fighting in Ukraine. The bloc’s top diplomat said the conflict “will be won on the battlefield” as he announced more military aid to Kiev last Saturday. Lavrov called the statement “outrageous.”

This statement alone should tell you who is responsible for this conflict.

It’s not Russia!

Russia was backed into a corner and threatened with obliteration by this ZOG world domination scheme, and unlike other countries, they stood up and said “nope.”

“When a diplomatic chief… says a certain conflict can only be resolved through military action… Well, it must be something personal. He either misspoke or spoke without thinking, making a statement that nobody asked him to make. But it’s an outrageous remark,” Lavrov added.

The EU’s role has shifted during the Ukraine security crisis, the minister believes. Previously it didn’t act as a military organization “fighting collectively against an invented threat.” Lavrov said the change was the result of pressure put on the bloc’s members by Washington, which has pushed it closer to NATO.

For its part, Russia wants to negotiate peace with Ukraine, Lavrov added.

Well, someone is behind this bizarre transformation from peacefulness to open military conflict, and it is certainly clear that Europe would not make these decisions themselves.

Since the end of World War II, Western Europe has been a proxy of Washington, and since the 1990s, most of Eastern Europe has been a proxy of Washington.

They appear to continue to believe that they have this in the bag, something which is utterly delusional to the point where it is incomprehensible.

Please remember what the Russian soldiers were told in their instructional materials:

“The Russian army is the last bastion against the Satanic new world order”. Literal quote from the official Russian Officer’s Handbook. Captured by Ukrainian GUR, document appears authentic. [link]

We have prayed for salvation of our ancient faith. We have prayed for the destruction of the Anal Empire.

The Lord does not abandon His servants, and when they cry out to Him, He hears them.

He has made with us a covenant.

Putin was biding all of his time. Then he made the move.

This is checkmate.

May the Archangel Michael guide the bullets and bombs of the heroes defending the faith against this global Jewish faggot terror.

The people of the Lord will be free from this satanic ensnarement.

Categories
Michael O'Meara Vladimir Putin

Putin vs. Murka

by Michael O’Meara

Editor’s note: In yesterday’s post I mentioned Michael O’Meara. While it is true what I said about his Christian sympathies, as can be seen in the article below, this piece by O’Mearea from nearly a decade ago is surprisingly topical, and helps us understand what is going on these turbulent days.

Originally published in Counter-Currents on 7 October 2013 under the heading ‘Too Much Putin?’, it also helps us understand how that webzine’s editor, Greg Johnson, has (like Richard Spencer) betrayed the cause by taking the wrong side in the recent conflict in Ukraine. Unlike this pair, in the first paragraph my red emphasis on the author’s words indicates why I believe the issue of these days in Ukraine is of vital importance:

 

______ 卐 ______

 

US hegemony may be approaching its end. Once the world refuses to acknowledge the imperial authority of its humanitarian missiles, and thus stops paying tribute to its predatory model of the universe, then American power inevitably starts to decline—and not simply on the world stage, but also domestically, among the empire’s subjects, who in the course of the long descent will be forced to discover new ways to assert themselves.

Historically, America’s counter-civilizational system was an offshoot of the Second World War, specifically the US conquest of Europe — which made America, Inc. (Organized Jewry/Wall Street/the military-industrial complex) the key-holder not solely to the New Deal/War Deal’s Washingtonian Leviathan, but to its new world order: an updated successor to Disraeli’s money-making empire, upon which the sun never set.[1]

The prevailing race-mixing, nation-destroying globalization of the last two and a half decades, with its cosmopolitan fixation on money and commerce and its non-stop miscegenating brainwashing, is, as such, preeminently a product of this postwar system that emerged from the destruction of Central Europe and from America’s Jewish/capitalist-inspired extirpation of its European Christian roots.[2]

The fate of white America, it follows, is closely linked to the “order” the United States imposed on the “Free World” after 1945 and on the rest of the world after 1989. This was especially evident in the recent resistance of the American “people” to Obama’s flirtation with World War III—a resistance obviously emboldened by the mounting international resistance to Washington’s imperial arrogance, as it (this resistance) momentarily converged with the worldwide Aurora Movements resisting the scorched-earth campaigns associated with US power.[3]
 

* * *

 
Everyone on our side recognizes the ethnocidal implications of America’s world order, but few, I suspect, understand its civilizational implications as well as Russia’s Vladimir Putin.

On September 19, barely a week after our brush with the Apocalypse, the Russian president delivered an address to the Valdai International Discussion Club (an international forum on Russia’s role in the world), which highlighted the extreme degree to which Putin’s vision of world order differs from that of Obama and the American establishment.[4] Indeed, Putin’s entire line of thought, in its grasp of the fundamental challenges of our age, is unlike anything to be found in the discourse of the Western political classes (though from the misleading reports in the MSM on his Valdai address this would never be known).[5]

Putin, to be sure, is no White Nationalist and thus no proponent of a racially-homogeneous ethnostate. This makes him like everyone else. Except Putin is not like everyone else, as we’ll see.

Certain East Europeans, instinctively anti-Russian, like our Cold War “conservatives,” refuse to appreciate Russia’s new international role because of historical grievances related to an earlier legacy of Tsarist or Soviet imperialism (though their grievances, they should know, bear little comparison to those “We Irish” hold against the English ruling class). In any case, such tribal grievances are not our concern, nor should they prevent the recognition that East Europeans and Russians, like Irish and English—and like all the national tribes belonging to that community of destiny distinct to the white man—share a common interest (a life-and-death interest) in being all prospective allies in the war against the globalist forces currently assaulting them in their native lands.

It’s not simply because Russia is anti-American that she is increasingly attractive to the conscious remnants of the European race in North America (though that might be reason enough). Rather it’s that Russia, in defying the globalist forces and reaffirming the primacy of her heritage and identity, stands today for principles that lend international legitimacy—and hence a modicum of power—to patriots everywhere resisting the enemies of their blood.

* * *

 
Qualitative differences of world-shaping consequence now clearly separate Russians and Americans on virtually every key issue of our age (more so than during the Cold War)—differences in my view that mark the divide between the forces of white preservation and those of white replacement, and, more generally, between the spirit of European man and the materialist, miscegenating depravity of the US system, which approaches the whole world as if it were a flawed and irredeemable version of itself.

In this sense, the decline of American global power and the rising credibility of Russia’s alternative model can only enhance the power of European Americans, increasing their capacity to remain true to their self-identity. US imperial decline might even eventually give them a chance to take back some of the power that decides who they are.

Putin’s discourse at the Valdai Club addressed issues (to paraphrase) related to the values underpinning Russia’s development, the global processes affecting Russian national identity, the kind of 21st-century world Russians want to see, and what they can contribute to this future.

His responses to these issues were historically momentous in being unlike anything in the West today. Cynics, of course, will dismiss his address as mere PR, though the Russian leader has a documented history of saying what he thinks—and thus ought not be judged like American politicians, who say only what’s on the teleprompter and then simply for the sake of spin and simulacra.

Foremost of Russia’s concerns, as Putin defined it in his address to the club’s plenary session, is “the problem of remaining Russian in a globalizing world hostile to national identity.” “For us (and I am talking about Russians and Russia), questions about who we are and who we want to be are increasingly prominent in our society.” In a word, Putin sees identitarianism as the central concern of Russia’s “state-civilization,” (something quite staggering when you consider that the very term [“identitarianism”] was hardly known outside France when I started translating it a decade ago). Identitarianism in the 21st century may even, as Putin implies, prove to be what nationalism and socialism were to the 20th century: the great alternative to liberal nihilism.

Like Bush, Clinton, or other US flim-flam artists, Obama could conceivably mouth a similar defense of national identity if the occasion demanded it, but never, not in a thousand years, could he share the sentiment motivating it, namely the sense that: “It is impossible to move forward without spiritual, cultural, and national self-determination. Without this we will not be able to withstand internal and external challenges, nor will we succeed in global competitions.”[6]

The operative term here is “spiritual, cultural and national self-determination”—not diversity, universalism, or some putative human right; not even money and missiles—for in Putin’s vision, Russia’s historical national, cultural, and spiritual identities are the alpha and omega of Russian policy. Without these identities and the spirit animating them, Russia would cease to be Russia; she would be nothing—except another clone of America’s supermarket culture. With her identity affirmed, as recent events suggest, Russia again becomes a great power in the world.

The question of self-determination is necessarily central to the anti-identitarianism of our global, boundary-destroying age. According to Putin, Russia’s national identity

is experiencing not only objective pressures stemming from globalisation, but also the consequences of the national catastrophes of the twentieth century, when we experienced the collapse of our state two different times [1917 and 1991]. The result was a devastating blow to our nation’s cultural and spiritual codes; we were faced with the disruption of traditions and the consonance of history, with the demoralisation of society, with a deficit of trust and responsibility. These are the root causes of many pressing problems we face.

Then, following the Soviet collapse of 1991, Putin says:

There was the illusion that a new national ideology, a development ideology [promoted by Wall Street and certain free-market economists with Jewish names], would simply appear by itself. The state, authorities, intellectual and political classes virtually rejected engaging in this work, all the more so since previous, semi-official ideology was hard to swallow. And in fact they were all simply afraid to even broach the subject. In addition, the lack of a national idea stemming from a national identity profited the quasi-colonial element of the elite—those determined to steal and remove capital, and who did not link their future to that of the country, the place where they earned their money.

Putin here has obviously drawn certain traditionalist conclusions from the failings of the former Communist experiment, as well as from capitalism’s present globalizing course.

A new national idea does not simply appear, nor does it develop according to market rules. A spontaneously constructed state and society does not work, and neither does mechanically copying other countries’ experiences. Such primitive borrowing and attempts to civilize Russia from abroad were not accepted by an absolute majority of our people. This is because the desire for independence and sovereignty in spiritual, ideological and foreign policy spheres is an integral part of our national character… [It’s an integral part of every true nation.]

The former Communist KGB officer (historical irony of historical ironies) stands here on the stump of that political/cultural resistance born in reaction to the French Revolution and its destruction of historical organisms.

In developing new strategies to preserve Russian identity in a rapidly changing world, Putin similarly rejects the tabula rasa contentions of the reigning liberalism, which holds that you can “flip or even kick the country’s future like a football, plunging into unbridled nihilism, consumerism, criticism of anything and everything…” Like Burke, he in effect condemns the “junta of robbers” seeking to rip the traditional social fabric for the sake of short term profit, as these money-grubbers prepare the very revolution they dred.

Programmatically, this means:

Russia’s sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity [against which America’s counter-civilizational system relentlessly schemes] are unconditional. These are red lines no one is allowed to cross. For all the differences in our views, debates about identity and about our national future are impossible unless their participants are patriotic.” [That is, only Russians, not Washington or New York, ought to have a say in determining who or what a Russian is.]

Self-criticism is necessary, but without a sense of self-worth, or love for our Fatherland, such criticism becomes humiliating and counterproductive. [These sorts of havoc-wreaking critiques are evident today in every Western land. Without loyalty to a heritage based on blood and spirit, Russians would be cast adrift in a historyless stream, like Americans and Europeans.] We must be proud of our history, and we have things to be proud of. Our entire, uncensored history must be a part of Russian identity. Without recognising this it is impossible to establish mutual trust and allow society to move forward…

The challenges to Russia’s identity, he specifies, are

linked to events taking place in the world [especially economic globalization and its accompanying destruction of traditional life]. Here there are both foreign policy and moral aspects. We can see how many of the Euro-Atlantic countries are actually rejecting their roots, including the Christian values that constitute the basis of Western civilisation. They are denying moral principles and all traditional identities: national, cultural, religious, and even sexual. They are implementing policies that equate large families with same-sex partnerships, belief in God with the belief in Satan.

The excesses of political correctness have reached the point where people are seriously talking about registering political parties whose aim is to promote paedophilia. People in many European countries are embarrassed or afraid to talk about their religious affiliations. Holidays are abolished or even called something different; their essence is hidden away, as is their moral foundation. And people [i.e., the Americans and their vassals] are aggressively trying to export this model all over the world. I am convinced that this opens a direct path to degradation and primitivism, resulting in a profound demographic and moral crisis. [Hence, the US-sponsored desecrations of Pussy Riot.]

What else but the loss of the ability to self-reproduce could act as the greatest testimony of the moral crisis facing a human society? Today almost all developed nations [infected with the system’s counter-civilizational ethos] are no longer able to reproduce themselves, even with the help of migration. Without the values embedded in Christianity and other world religions, without the standards of morality that have taken shape over millennia, people will inevitably lose their human dignity. We consider it natural and right to defend these values. One must respect every minority’s right to be different, but the rights of the majority must not be put into question.

Tolerant and pluralist though he is here, Putin nevertheless affirms the primacy of Russia herself. Our politicians get this 100 percent wrong, Putin only 50 percent—which puts him at the head of the class.

At the same time we see attempts to somehow revive a standardized [i.e., Americanized] model of a unipolar world and to blur the institutions of international law and national sovereignty. Such a unipolar, standardised world does not require sovereign states; it requires vassals. In a historical sense this amounts to a rejection of one’s own identity, of the God-given diversity of the world.

Russia agrees with those who believe that key decisions should be worked out on a collective basis, rather than at the discretion of and in the interests of certain countries or groups of countries. Russia believes that international law, not the right of the strong, must apply. And we believe that every country, every nation is not exceptional [as the Americans think they are], but unique, original, and benefits from equal rights, including the right to independently choose their own development path…

This is our conceptual outlook, and it follows from our own historical destiny and Russia’s role in global politics. [Instead, then, of succumbing to America’s suburban consumer culture and its larger dictates, Russia seeks to preserve her own identity and independence.]

Our present position has deep historical roots. Russia itself has evolved on the basis of diversity, harmony and balance, and brings such a balance to the international stage.

The grandeur of Putin’s assertion here has to be savored: against the latest marketing or policy scheme the US tries to impose on Russia, he advances his queen, pointing to a thousand years of Russian history, as he disperses America’s corrupting ploys with a dismissive smirk.

Though seeing Russia as a multiethnic/multi-confessional state that has historically recognized the rights of minorities, he insists she must remain Russian:

Russia—as philosopher Konstantin Leontyev vividly put it—has always evolved in ‘blossoming complexity’ as a state-civilisation, reinforced by the Russian people, Russian language, Russian culture, Russian Orthodox Church and the country’s other traditional religions. It is precisely the state-civilisation model that has shaped our state polity…

Thus it is that Russians, among other things, “must restore the role of great Russian culture and literature… to serve as the foundation for people’s personal identity, the source of their uniqueness, and their basis for understanding the national idea…” Following Yeats, he might have added that the arts dream of “what is to come,” providing Russians new ways of realizing or re-inventing themselves.

I want to stress again that without focusing our efforts on people’s education and health, creating mutual responsibility between the authorities and each individual, and establishing trust within society, we will be losers in the competition of history. Russia’s citizens must feel that they are the responsible owners of their country, region, hometown, property, belongings and their lives. A citizen is someone who is capable of independently managing his or her own affairs…

Think of how the “democratic” powers of the Americanosphere now hound and persecute whoever insists on managing his own affairs: e.g., Greece’s Golden Dawn.

The years after 1991 are often referred to as the post-Soviet era. We have lived through and overcome that turbulent, dramatic period. Russia has passed through these trials and tribulations and is returning to herself, to her own history, just as she did at other points in its history. [This forward-looking orientation rooted in a filial loyalty to the Russian past makes Putin something of an archeofuturist.] After consolidating our national identity, strengthening our roots, and remaining open and receptive to the best ideas and practices of the East and the West, we must and will move forward.

As an ethnonationalist concerned with the preservation and renaissance of my own people, I hope Russia succeeds not only in defending her national identity (and ideally that of others), but in breaking America’s anti-identitarian grip on Europe, so as to insure the possibility of a future Euro-Russian imperium federating the closely related white, Christian peoples, whose lands stretch from the Atlantic to the Urals.

But even barring this, Russia’s resistance to the ethnocidal forces of the US global system, will continue to play a major role in enabling European Americans trapped in the belly of the beast to better defend their own blood and spirit.

And even if Europeans should persist in their servility and the United States continues to lead its “mother soil and father culture” into the abyss, Russians under Putin will at least retain some chance of remaining themselves—which is something no mainstream American or European politician seeks for his people.

If only for this reason, I think there can never be “too much Putin,” as our Russophobes fear.
 
__________

Notes

[1] Desmond Fennell, Uncertain Dawn: Hiroshima and the Beginning of Post-Western Civilization(Dublin: Sanas, 1996); Julius Evola, “Disraeli the Jew and the Empire of the Shopkeepers” (1940).

[2] Boreas Rising: White Nationalism and the Geopolitics of the Paris-Berlin-Moscow Axis” (2005).

[3] Against the Armies of the Night: The Aurora Movements” (2010).

[4] President of Russia, “Address to the Valdai International Discussion Club” September 19, 2013. (I have made several grammatical and stylistic changes to the translation.)

[5] Much of my understanding of this comes from Dedefensa, “Poutine, la Russie et le sens de la crise” (September 23, 2013) at [broken link].

[6] Samuel P. Huntington was the last major representative of the US elite to uphold a view even vaguely affirmative of the nation’s historical culture—and he caught hell for it. See Who Are We? The Challenges to America’s National Identity(New York: Simon & Schuster, 2005).

Categories
2nd World War Francis Parker Yockey Philosophy of history

‘Der Feind’ – The Enemy

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

______ 卐 ______

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

American-Jewish Bolshevism versus Russian Bolshevism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Europe-Russia symbiosis

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

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

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

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

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

Yockey’s accordance with German geopolitical thinking

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Russia’s policy of conciliation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

_____________

Notes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[26] Wolf Rüdiger Hess, ibid., 251.

[27] Ibid., 252-253.

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

[29] Ibid.

[30] Ibid.

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

[32] NDPD Program, June 1951.

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

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