THE ENEMY OF OUR ENEMIES – A Critique of Francis Parker Yockey’s The Enemy of Europe

THE ENEMY OF OUR ENEMIES:
A Critique of Francis Parker Yockey’s The Enemy of Europe

by Professor Revilo P. Oliver

(Published in one volume with Francis Parker Yockey’s The Enemy of Europe, Liberty Bell Publications, November 1981)

DEDICATED TO THE MEMORY OF
THE FOUNDER OF THE FRANCIS PARKER YOCKEY SOCIETY
LOUIS T. BYERS
Louis T. Byers
AN ARYAN OF THE ARYANS
WHO ALSO FOUGHT A GOOD FIGHT TO ITS TRAGIC END
22 OCTOBER 1981

CONTENTS

PART I

The Retroversion

Historionomy

Cyclical History

The Great Pseudo-Morphosis

Spengler vs. Yockey

PART II

One Europe

Overseas Europe

The Heartland

The Nutcracker

The Paradox

The Thrid Side of the Coin

At the Wailing Wall

Tod und Verklärung

The Dying and the Dead

The Epitaph

Epilogue, The Erinyes

THE ENEMY OF OUR ENEMIES

PART I

Francis Parker YockeyWHEN Francis Parker Yockey completed and published Imperium in 1948, he wrote a comparatively short sequel or pendant to his major work. This sequel, which he later entitled The Enemy of Europe, is now lost, but he had his manuscript with him when he was in Germany in 1953, and, after revising two passages to take account of events since 1948, he had it translated into German and printed at Frankfurt-am-Main in an edition of two hundred copies. Yockey’s work displeased the Jews, who accordingly ordered their henchmen to raid the printing plant, punish the printer, smash the types, and destroy all copies of the book. Yockey escaped and fortunately had already sent several copies abroad, and it is from a photocopy of one of these that Mr. Francis has tried to restore Yockey’s English text, so far as possible.

The Enemy of Europe is a work of great philosophical, historical, and political significance because

1) In it Yockey applies to the contemporary situation of the world the philosophy of history that he elaborated in Imperium, much as Spengler in Die Jahr der Entscheidung applied to the world of 1933 the philosophical theory he had expounded in his Untergang des Abendlandes.

2) It is the earliest coherent expression of a political attitude in Europe which first became manifest to Americans in the late 1950s and which at the present time largely determines the conduct of the various European nations in their relations with the United States and the Soviet Union. This attitude, which is generally misunderstood because, for the most part, Europeans cautiously use in public only equivocal or vague terms to intimate or disguise what Yockey said explicitly and without diplomatic subterfuge, was quickly imitated in other parts of the world and is commonly designated by such terms as ‘neutralism,’ ‘uncommitted nations,’ and ‘The Third World.’

3) Yockey’s analysis of the situation when he wrote poses today the most urgent question before intelligent Americans and, indeed, all other members of our race–a question of political fact that each of us must solve, at least provisionally, before he can estimate the chances that our species will survive on this globe.

It will be proper, therefore, to examine, as summarily as possible, each of these three aspects of The Enemy of Europe. Before we do so, however, it behooves us to say something about the only text in which Yockey’s work is now available.

THE RETROVERSION

Yockey’s manuscript, as I have said, has disappeared and must be presumed lost. (1) We may conjecture that it was in Frankfurt when the subjugated Germans’ Thought Police (2) burned, as they thought, all copies of the German edition, and that they found and burned it at the same time. So far as I know, the identity of the translator, who did the work for a small fee, (3) is now unknown, possibly even to the Jews, who, despite the efficiency of their espionage service, which is by far the finest and most formidable in the entire world, seem not to have known that a few copies of Der Feind Europas escaped the destruction they had ordered.

(1. Yockey seems not to have made a carbon copy, an unfortunate omission. The distinguished foreign correspondent of the Chicago Tribune, Donald Day, wrote, on the basis of his own observations, a book, Onward, Christian Solders, to tell the truth about events in northern Europe during the years in which preparations were being made for the attack on Germany by the Jews’ Aryan dupes in 1939. His typewritten manuscripts appears to have been destroyed in connection with the vicious persecution to which Day was subjected by the Jews’ government in Washington, prevented him from ever returning to his own country. He kept a carbon copy, however, from which the greater part of his book was eventually published, first in a mimeographed transcription, and then in a printed volume. For the details, see Liberty Bell, January 1983, pp. 27-34. A Swedish translation of Day’s book was published in 1944, from which chapters and sections missing in the incomplete edition of Day’s book now in print were translated back into English by Paul Knutson and published in Liberty Bell, June 1984, pp. 1-40.)

(2. The raid was officially carried out by an agency of the nominally German government that was set up in the western part of the conquered territory and given “virtual sovereignty” in 1952, the Bundesnachrichtendienst Abteilung K-16, a counterpart (or subsidiary) of “our” C.I.A. Its official functions are to control the Communists, work in which it has been notoriously unsuccessful, to terrorize Germans who seem not to have learned that they must venerate the Jews, and to help God’s People hunt down Germans who were loyal to their country before it was destroyed in 1945 and have failed subsequently to cringe before the Master Race to which Yahweh, by a famous Covenant (B’rith), deeded ownership of the entire world and all the lower animals in it, including, of course, the fatuous Aryans.)

(3. It is reported that a man, unnamed but identified as a German, was arrested in Frankfurt and punished as the translator of forbidden thought. Since, as I shall mention shortly, it is scarcely credible that the translator was a native German, we may conjecture that the man, who was perhaps caught with Yockey’s manuscript in his possession, accepted the blame to shield the real translator (perhaps a woman), perhaps thereby facilitating Yockey’s escape from Frankfurt. A memorandum in Yockey’s handwriting indicates that when the book went to press, he still owed the translator $45.00; from this it may be inferred that the total fee was not large, perhaps twice that amount. A man whose knowledge of Yockey’s career far exceeds my own believes that the memorandum was disingenuous and that Yockey himself produced the German version, and supports his opinion by a stylistic analysis that does show that, in all probability, the translation was made by an American. Since he admits that the only evidence is “indirect and circumstantial,” I elect to accept Yockey’s memorandum at its face value here and leave the decision to Yockey’s future biographer. The details of an author’s life may be interesting in themselves, but are seldom relevant to the worth of a literary or philosophical work. As Flaubert said, “L’homme, c’est rien; l’oevre, c’est tout.”)

The Jews are almost invariably accurate in statements of verifiable fact that they include in the data compiled for the use of the cowboys who ride herd on their Aryan cattle. I note that in one such compilation, dated May 1969, they boast that Yockey’s “pamphlet for distribution in the United States” was evidently printed but “confiscated by the Federal authorities,” and that the manuscript of his unfinished book, The American Destiny, was seized when he was arrested by their Federal Agents. (4) Then follows, in the list of writings of the hated goy, this odd entry:

Enemy of Europe (completed book but never published as manuscript was to be translated into German).

It would appear, therefore, that they were satisfied that all vestiges of the printed edition had been successfully effaced.

(4. Yockey, whose passport had been confiscated by the State Department to prevent him from returning to the United States, entered the country on a forged passport in San Francisco, where he was the guest of a Jew in whom he had, for some reason, placed confidence. He was arrested, thrown into prison, held under a vindictively exorbitant bail, and found dead in his cell, reportedly a suicide. The Jew in whose home he had stayed disappeared until after Yockey was dead, and was found to have sneaked into the United States under an assumed name with a fraudulent passport, but no one, surely, would be so “anti-Semitic” as to suppose that God’s Own People are amenable to laws that are enforced against the lower races. You may be quite certain, of course, that the manuscript of The American Destiny will never be found, whether it was burned or is now in the files of the Federal Bureau of Intimidation. A short essay entitled “The Destiny of America,” which may be an extract from the unfinished book, was mimeographed and distributed privately in 1955; by an audacious but not unprecedented plagiarism, a would-be “leader” of the American “right-wing” then published it, with additions, under his own name. The theme of Yockey’s book may be deduced from an essay, “The World in Flames,” that was published as a booklet by his friends in 1961, shortly after his death. Both essays are reproduced in the booklet, Four Essays, now available from Liberty Bell Publications.)

I remark in passing that American “Liberals” are wont to yap about “book burning,” but that is merely characteristic hypocrisy. Everyone knows that well-conditioned “intellectuals,” their little minds sodden with the degrading superstitions that are injected into white children in the public boob-hatcheries, like well-trained dogs, never bark when their masters have enjoined silence. It is hard to believe, however, that the “intellectuals,” unlike the dogs, never perceive the inconsistency of their conduct–not even when they refrain from complaining about the total destruction of books that are disapproved by Jews.

From a photocopy of one surviving copy of the German book an attempt to restore Yockey’s English text has been made by Mr. Francis whom I know only through some correspondence and conversations over the telephone. No one will expect the retroversion to be precisely what Yockey wrote, but we must specifically note that Mr. Francis has acquitted himself of a very difficult task.

All that remains of Yockey’s original are five paragraphs that do not appear in the German translation. It seems that when he sent his book to press, he extracted those paragraphs from his own “Introductory Note” and planned to have them printed as a preface signed by a friend who was going to contribute half of the cost of printing. (5) The friend evidently declined the honor: he may have been unwilling to expose himself to punishment by the Jews or he may have decided not to remit the $210.00 that Yockey believed he had promised. (6) Mr. Francis has restored these paragraphs to their logical place in Yockey’s introduction. For all the rest of the book, he had to work from the German translation.

(5. Yockey added, for the proposed preface, an introductory sentence, which he squeezed in at the top of the typewritten page. The clause in the first paragraph, “Having lived for several decades in America,” was originally intended to refer to himself, being strictly true (he was born in Chicago, 18 September 1917) but designed to conceal the nationality of the author of Imperium and Der Feind Europas, which were published under the pseudonym Ulick Varange. In his introduction to the American edition of Imperium, Willis A. Carto explains the pseudonym thus: “Ulick is an Irish given name…and means ‘reward of the mind.’ Varange, of course, refers to the Varangians, that far-roving band of Norse heroes led by Rurick who…came to civilize Russia in the 9th Century….The name, therefore, drawn as it is from the Eastern and Western antipodes of Europe, signifies a Europe united ‘from the rocky promontories of Galway to the Urals.’ ” Perhaps, but the Varangians are best known as the Norse mercenaries who formed the ‚lite corps of Byzantine armies, and Ulick is the early Erse adaptation, from the Latin Ulixes, of the name of the great Aryan hero, celebrated for his courage and practical wisdom, who, at the very beginning of the epic, is described as having wandered for many years after the fall of the sacred city of Ilium, which his fellow Greeks destroyed, and having seem many foreign cities and observed the character of many tribes of men. Both names, therefore, connote a stranger in a strange land. Yockey felt himself a stranger in an America that had lost its early Western culture and become a colony ruled by its Jewish masters (see Part Two below). It would be otiose to speculate whether Yockey remembered the etymology of Odysseus in the epic (XIX, 407 sqq.) or had in mind the fact that the Byzantine Empire was inhabited by diverse and mostly mongrelized peoples and infested by Jews.)

(6. The facts could doubtless be ascertained, but they are irrelevant to the philosophical and political significance of Yockey’s book, and I leave the task of ascertaining them to a future biographer.)

I cannot believe that German was the translator’s native language. His occasional errors in syntax are not what one would expect of a young person whose education had been interrupted by the European catastrophe, and while some of the awkwardness of his version suggests the sloppiness of the worst German journalism, they correspond much more closely to the paraphrases and circumlocutions in which we indulge when we are speaking a foreign language in which we have not learned to think, cannot call to mind a precise equivalent of an English expression, and try to make our meaning clear as best we may. And we may be certain that Yockey’s command of German was not adequate to enable him to revise and polish a translation that is always pedestrian and sometimes worse. He could doubtless speak German sufficiently for ordinary conversation and to write short letters, but it is significant that he read and quoted Spengler in the English translation by Charles Francis Atkinson. It is true that Atkinson was a great translator whose versions from Spengler and Friedell accurately represent the German in English so impeccable, fluidly idiomatic, and, on occasion, eloquent that they set a standard that few translators from one language to another can hope to approach; but nevertheless, it is hard to believe that Yockey would not at least have read the original texts, had he felt at home in literary and philosophical German. That he did not do so may reasonably be inferred from the fact that, as Mr. Francis discovered, in the manuscript that Yockey gave to the German translator, he quoted Spengler in Atkinson’s translation, and the translator, instead of supplying the corresponding text from Spengler’s German, simply retranslated Atkinson’s English into German, somewhat distorting the meaning in a way that gives us no high estimate in his competence in either language. (7)

(7. A good and probative example is the epigraph prefixed to Chapter 1, ch. 4 (p. 29 of the German edition), which is a rather loose translation of Atkinson’s The Hour of Decision, p. 205, which is an accurate translation from Spengler’s Die Jahre der Entscheidung, p. 148 in the first edition (1933). Even though Yockey’s German translator was poorly paid, he can scarcely be forgiven such negligence, unless he had to work in great haste or under very adverse conditions.)

Mr. Francis’s retroversion is the accomplishment of an arduous task. He had to decide where the German translator was content to approximate the meaning of the English before him rather than render it precisely or even altered a logical sequence of ideas to shirk the labor of transferring the argument from one language into another in which the normal order of words and clauses is quite different. A comparison of some passages of the retroversion with the corresponding German satisfies me that Mr. Francis has approximated Yockey’s original as closely as is possible in the present circumstances. In what follows here, my reference will be to pages of his work.

HISTORIONOMY

I need not remark that the formulation, or the criticism, of a philosophy of history is a task suited only to the comparatively rare minds, probably found only in our race, who can attain a perfectly dispassionate and relentless objective attitude of intellectual detachment from their personal wishes, sympathies, and even instinctive loyalties, at least during their consideration of the problems involved. Persons who have psychic fixations on gods or other praeternatural powers in whose existence they find it comforting to believe, or who feel an uncontrollable impulse to eulogize the “greatest nation on earth” or some ideological savior, or whose vanity must be salved by faith in the immortal excellence of their race, caste, or clique, should be advised not to disturb their glands with reading that cannot fail to affect adversely their equanimity and their blood pressure.

It is less obvious, perhaps, that every man who tries to elicit natural laws from the records of human history will inevitably make errors in matters of detail that need not impugn the validity of his general theory. A synoeretical view of human history or of the history of our race must be based in large part on secondary sources, since no man can learn all of the relevant languages or find time, in the short span of human life, to read and ponder all of the practically innumerable archaeological and philological reports and studies that may (or may not) in some way alter our understanding of the past. To demand of a vast theoretical and philosophical construction absolute accuracy in all details, as the little men who have long been barking at Spengler’s heels would have us do, is as absurd as to demand that every square centimeter of St. Peter’s in Rome or Westminister Abbey be finished with the accuracy of well-cut diamond. Even if a man is not betrayed, humanitus, by the lability of his own memory when it is charged with almost infinite details, he must, for a large part of his survey, depend on scholars who are reputed to be experts in the history of some particular region or culture and whose summaries and interpretations of data may not be endorsed by contemporaries of equal reputation in the same field, so that, as often as not, a man must acquire a very considerable knowledge of each subject before he can decide whose authority is to be trusted, even provisionally. Furthermore, in many areas of history and pre-history our knowledge is so fragmentary that the conclusions generally accepted today may become obsolete tomorrow as the result of some new discovery (as, for example, the discovery that solar radiation has fluctuated even so recently as during the past ten thousand years, which made it necessary to calibrate chronological determinations made from the radioactive isotope of carbon) or even detection of the spuriousness of evidence previously accepted (as in the example from The Enemy of Europe that I shall mention below). (8)

(8. Although it is not strictly relevant to a judgment of his work, we may, as a matter of human interest, remember that Yockey was an astonishingly young man, only thirty years old, when he settled down in Ireland to write Imperium, and only twenty-four when his studies were interrupted and he was hauled into the Army for service in Roosevelt’s War. When we consider the brilliance Yockey exhibited in his youth, we can only wonder what his incisive and versatile mind would have accomplished, had he lived in a happier age and been able to complete the long study and meditation requisite for the great intellectual task before him. We need not add that when he wrote in a hamlet on the lonely coast of the Irish Sea south of Dublin and Wicklow, he probably did not have at his disposal even the basic reference works that every serious writer keeps on his desk.)

When I reviewed the American edition of Imperium in 1963, I called attention to a startling slip of memory. Yockey says (p. 288):

‘When Charles of Anjou beheaded Conradin, the last Hohenstaufen Emperor, in 1267 [October 1268], Germany disappeared from Western history, as a unit of political significance, for 500 years…. During these centuries, the high history of Europe was made by other powers mostly with their own blood. This meant that–in comparison with the vast expenditure of blood over the generations of the others–Germany was spared.’

Yockey, writing from memory (hence the trivial error in the date) and perceiving the significance of the eclipse of the Holy Roman Empire as a European power, made a sweeping generalization, forgetting at the moment the Thirty Years’ War (1618-1648), in which, according to the best estimates of cautious historians, two-thirds of the population of Germany perished and much of the country was made a waste land over which Protestants and Catholics fought, each to exterminate the other for the glory of God and the profit of the Jews.

The Enemy of Europe contains (p. 80) a compound error that is both obvious and an excellent illustration of what I have said above.

‘In the 16th century B.C., Northern [nordische] barbarians invaded the Egyptians culture-petrifact, to enact the chapter of history that is called the “Hyksos” era.’

Aside from the superficial reference to Egyptian culture as petrified, which could be defended only with reference to a much later period in Egypt’s history, there are two errors. The first of these is clearly a slip of Yockey’s memory: he has confused the successive invasions of Egypt in the thirteenth century B.C. by the “Peoples of the Sea,” who were predominantly Nordic (and who were defeated and expelled, finally by Ramses III in the following century), with the earlier take-over of Egypt in the seventeenth century (9) by the “Hyksos,” who were predominantly Semitic–a confusion facilitated by the speculations of some historians who tried to reconcile conflicting evidence by postulating that the “Hyksos” were the Hittites, who were classified as Aryan (10) because they were ruled by an aristocracy (which evidently came from the east to invade and conquer the country) and their official language was based on Indo-European.

(9. Yockey’s reference to the sixteenth century B.C. is to the recovery of Egyptian independence. The rule of the “Hyksos” lasted for a little more than a century. The dates here are fairly secure, although chronological precision in Egyptian history can be attained with certainty only with the Eighteenth Dynasty.)

(10. The word ‘Aryan’ is commonly avoided these days by writers who fear that the Jews will punish them for using it, but we do need a specific designation for our race and one that will permit us to restrict ‘Indo-European’ to use as a linguistic term, since, as everyone knows, race and language are quite different things, and language is not an indication of race or even nationality. (Jews are not Germans because many of them speak Yiddish, which is basically a corruption of a low dialect of German, and the Congoids residing in the United States are not Anglo-Saxon because their only language is a debased English.) The great pioneer in social anthropology, Vacher de Lapouge, would have us restrict the term ‘Aryan’ historically to the division of our race that conquered India and Persia and sooner or later destroyed itself by miscegenation with the aborigines they had subdued. (One has only to think of the mongrel population of modern Iran, of which the name, derived from arya through the Zend Airyana, means ‘land of the Aryans’!) He would have us use the Linnaean biological classification, Homo Europaeus and Homo Alpinus, which correspond to ‘Nordic’ and ‘Alpine’ in the more common terminology; but the awkwardness of those terms is obvious. The Sanskrit arya is not only the designation by which conquerors of India and Persia identified themselves, but also a word meaning ‘noble,’ which designates the qualities of heroism, chivalry, and magnanimity for which our race has always had a characteristic and distinctive admiration, and is therefore better than any neologism we might devise. So long as we intend to consider objectively the phenomena of the real world, we should not be deterred by the threats of our biological enemies nor yet by the yapping of trained witlings of our own race.)

The second error in that statement was not an error in 1948 in the sense that Yockey’s assumption that the “Hyksos” conquered Egypt could have been supported by references to the works of some of the most distinguished Egyptologists of the time, although grave misgivings about the supposed conquest had been accumulating since 1892 (and perhaps earlier), as the discrepancies between the one long-known account (the late Egyptian historian, Manetho, as quoted and interpreted by Josephus) on the one hand and the Egyptian inscriptions and the archaeological evidence on the other became ever more glaring. It is now established that there was no conquest by force of arms–no sudden invasion by barbarians of any race. (11) What happened was that Asiatics, (12) most or all of whom bore Semitic names and came from the region in Asia Minor that is now called Palestine, by gradual immigration across the Sinai peninsula infiltrated Egypt and used, consciously or instinctively, the techniques of subversion, inciting or exacerbating class-warfare, regional differences, and the greed or ambition of discontented Egyptians until the nation was reduced to a revolutionary chaos, fragmented under numerous local rulers, many of whom were native Egyptian puppets, and then again consolidated under Semitic overlords to whom the various provinces paid tribute. The Asiatics ruled Egypt for more than a century until a native tributary dared to revolt, and the Egyptians called their Semitic masters, whom many Egyptians revered willingly and for profit, their ‘alien rulers’–in the modern transliteration of hieroglyphics, which ignores unwritten vowels, the ________ [unable to render--Ed.] whence the long-misunderstood term ‘Hyksos.’ So much is now certain, although many details remain obscure, and we note the irony that Yockey, by a few years, missed an historical determination that would have been of the utmost value in the formulation of his own theory–the first clear example of conquest by immigration and subversion. (13)

(11. The facts, so far as they have now been ascertained, are well presented by Professor John Van Seter’s The Hyksos, Yale University Press, 1966. Although the crucial data come from an Egyptian stele found in 1954 and a papyrus that was first published in the following year, the evidence from archaeological and epigraphical sources had been accumulating for the better part of a century, but a clear understanding of what is known as the Second Intermediate Period in Egyptian history was impossible so long as historians felt obligated to try to reconcile the evidence with the statements of Josephus, a Jew who wrote in the first century of our era and claimed he was quoting Manetho, a very late Egyptian priest, who wrote in Greek in the third century B.C. Josephus, who naturally wails about what his race now calls “anti-Semitism” (i.e., resistance to its covert dominion), says what he thinks will impose on the goyim and is, naturally, a forger and a liar. His statements about a military conquest of Egypt by valiant Jews must be disregarded.)

(12. The proletarian revolution is described in the Admonitions of Ipuwer, one of the best-known works of Egyptian literature, now dated to the period of social upheaval that preceded the open dominion of the “Hyksos.” We do not know how numerous those Asiatics were, nor to what extent their subversion of Egypt was carried out by a conscious and concerted plan, as distinct from instinctive parasitism. It may be significant that some of them disguised themselves under Egyptian names, much as Jews now frequently masquerade under Anglo-Saxon names (e.g., Ashley Montagu!), and that the “Hyksos,” although fanatical devotees of an Asiatic god of their own, often feigned “conversion” to the native Egyptian cults. It is thus often difficult to tell whether some of the rulers subordinate to the Asiatic overlord were Asiatics masquerading under Egyptian names or Egyptian collaborators who profited from the exploitation of their own people. The Asiatics obviously promoted a “multi-racial” society as a means of destruction and perhaps even a kind of “anti-colonialism,” since the Blacks of the Egyptian colony in Nubia became “independent,” and, indeed, the Egyptian revolt against Asiatic domination succeeded only because the “liberated” Nubians failed to follow instructions from the “Hyksos” to attack the insurgent Egyptians in the rear. The policy of mongrelization was so successful that we even hear of one of the Asiatics’ puppets, supposedly the legitimate heir of an Egyptian king, who was known as The Black. The genetic ruin of Egypt was thus begun, although Egypt, after the expulsion of “Hyksos” rulers (though many of the race doubtless remained in Egypt) knew a period of imperial greatness under the Eighteenth Dynasty until the accession in 1379 B.C. of a crazed religious fanatic, Akhenaten, who, although at least two of his grandparents were blond Aryans, was, as is obvious from his portraits, some kind of mongrel.)

(13. The Egyptians did not distinguish clearly between the various breeds of Asiatics, and therefore the available evidence does not authorize an inference that they were Jews or directed by Jews, tempting as that inference is. There is no historical identification of Jews at so early a date. Josephus tried to connect the “Hyksos” with the story of Joseph in the Old Testament (Gen. 39-50), which is, of course, just a folk-tale dated by allusions to a much later time. It is not impossible, however, that some actual events may have suggested the exemplary fiction about a Jew who got into Egypt, wormed his way to the top by adroit trickery (supposedly with the help of his tribal god), preyed on the good nature of an unnamed Egyptian king to import a swarm of his brethren, exploited the stupid king’s superstitions with oneiromancy, got control of the whole nation, and, acting in the name of his royal dupe, cornered all the food and all the money in Egypt (see especially 47.14-21), and then starved the stupid goyim until they had to barter their cattle and their land for food and finally sell themselves into slavery, after which the wily Jew herded his biped cattle from their homes to other parts of the country to destroy what sense of community his slaves might have with their former neighbors.)

A philosophy of history is not invalidated by such oversights, any more than Copernican astronomy was invalidated by its author’s inadequate and largely erroneous knowledge of planetary orbits.

The analogy incidentally reminds us that the English word most commonly applied to efforts to formulate laws of history, historionomy, is misleading, since it suggests a possibility of determinations and predictions as precise and certain as in astronomy. That is manifestly absurd, and the French term, m‚tahistoire, with its implied analogy to the notoriously speculative and vaporous doctrines of metaphysics, is preferable, although it may conversely exaggerate the degree of uncertainty and insubstantiality. Whatever the name given to this comparatively new domain of inquiry, (14) it must be regarded as a philosophy, not as a science in the strict sense of that word. There is therefore a great difference between philosophical theory and practical perception of contemporary realities, although the two are combined in the work of every writer on the subject. The theory is neither strengthened nor impaired by the accompanying view of contemporary events.

(14. For all practical purposes, it may be said to begin with Th‚odore Funck-Brentano’s La civilisation et ses lois, published in 1876. The study is now obsolete but should not be forgotten. Its author saw clearly the absurdity of many contemporary fictions, such as the notion that there are “human rights” (which is still used to make bird-brains cackle), and understood that nations inevitably rot when they fall under the dominace of peace-lubbers; and he even foresaw the extension of Russian power over the more civilized nations of Europe.)

The still great prestige of Spengler today does not depend on the morphology of history that he elaborated in The Decline of the West, for while it would be premature to make a final judgment before 2000 or even 2100, it is apparent that the course of our own civilization has drastically departed from what his theory predicted. (14a) Indeed, unless there is a total and epochal reversal of present tendencies in the next two decades, it will be possible to reconcile the facts to his theory only by claiming that Faustian civilization was, like the Inca culture of Peru, cut off and destroyed before it reached maturity–a claim excluded by Spengler’s own analysis of historical forces. For the time being, at least, the Spenglerian theory seems to have been fallacious and to be memorable only as a vast intellectual construction, comparable to Kant’s philosophy, respectable as a monument of intellectual power, though mistaken in its conclusions, and as prime datum concerning the historical period in which it was constructed. But even if we flatly reject Spengler’s historionomy, we must nevertheless acknowledge and admire the sagacity of a mind that perceived contemporary realities much more clearly than did the reputedly wisest of his contemporaries, as is evidenced by numerous observations made obiter in his major work (15) and, above all, by The Hour of Decision, in which he, in 1932, saw, with a clarity and accuracy that is now indubitable, the grim realities of the world at that time and the imminent dangers to our civilization of which virtually no one was then aware. The essential accuracy of his prevision is made obvious by the disasters that have fallen so terribly upon us. (16)

(14a. Spengler’s historionomy, as expounded in his major works and, indeed, everything that he published before his death in 1936, predicted that, as an ineluctable historical necessity, the coming war would be fought for hegemony of the west, and the many highly intelligent men who were convinced by his analysis confidently expected that that war would decide which nation of our civilization would become the analogue of Rome in the Classical world. When the war occurred, however, it was fought for the Suicide of the West as a necessary preliminary to realization of the Jews’ millennial dream of subjugating the entire world. In no published work did Spengler show the slightest awareness of the terrible power of the international race or anticipate the now unconcealed Jewish domination under which the West is being driven to the precipice over which nations and races disappear from history. Some of his admirers today point out that he did not overlook the power of the great predators of international finance, some of whom are Aryans who have assimilated Jewish attitudes toward their own race, but in 1921 he assured his contemporaries that they were living at “the moment when money is celebrating its last victories, and the Caesarism that is to succeed approaches with quiet, firm step” (Vol. II, p. 507). Today, more than half a century later, is there any indication that “Caesar’s legions are returning to consciousness”? The present is obviously the result of forces that Spengler ignored, and whatever our problematic future may hold, events have shown that his “morphology of history” was, at least, radically defective. (Cf. pp. 23 ff. below.))

(15. E.g., his perception in 1921 (Vol. II, p. 457, n.2) that the Weimar Constitution would almost automatically lead to unlimited majority rule such as the Hitlerian r‚gime after its consolidation in 1934-35.)

(16. The Hour of Decision is incomplete, and Spengler’s understanding may have been more comprehensive than we now know. An unpleasant aspect of the Hitlerian r‚gime was an atmosphere, perhaps inevitable in all mass movements, that prevented Spengler from publishing, and perhaps from writing, the projected second volume. There was no official hostility toward him, and his books remained in print constantly until the Jewish conquest in 1945, but an English reader can sufficiently perceive the essentials of the situation from the translation of Spengler Letters, 1913-1936, selected and drastically edited by Arthur Helps (London, 1966), to pages of which my parenthetical numbers will refer. Although sales of the first volume delighted his publisher (291) and certain bookstores filled their windows with his works (285), and although he had an evidently amicable interview with Hitler (290), his book was, as he said, ” misunderstood by a section of the ruling party in Germany, and consequently attacked” (196), and, according to one of his friends, both the new book and the Untergang were attacked in an “unfounded, personally malicious, and rancorous way” by writers who were like vultures (300f.). Spengler officially protested to Dr. Goebbels the publication in one of the Party’s organs, the Kreuzzeitung, of two articles “in which I was described, among other things, as a traitor to my country. It is impossible,” he added, “to appear in public on behalf of Germany when at the same time articles of this kind appear. Personally they are a matter of indifference to me. For the last fifteen years I have endured so much abuse that I am sufficiently brazen-faced. But in regard to my efforts to work for Germany, they are a hindrance which must be got rid of” (290). Dr. Goebbels was apparently unable to suppress the attacks, which continued. There were rumors that he was an opponent of the r‚gime (304) and unverifiable reports that the r‚gime was opposed to him (297,308), and although the second volume was “anxiously awaited” (301, 308), it never appeared, and Spengler devoted his remaining years to studies in ancient history. That he wrote no more of the Hour of Decision than the published volume seems unlikely, but we cannot go beyond the affirmation of his niece and literary executrix, Dr. Hildegarde Kornhardt, that no part of a second volume was found among the Nachlaá after his death.)

The theory of history that Yockey elaborated in Imperium, which is essentially a revision of Spengler in the light of subsequent events and his own reading and observations, is separable from his estimate of the world situation, and it is not impossible that his reputation in our problematical future will depend more on The Enemy of Europe that on his major work.

Although The Enemy of Europe is formally presented as a pendent to Imperium, we must be certain that Yockey’s perception of the present was not deduced from historical theory. He was a man of acute and discerning mind, as he proved in an article published in 1939, when he was twenty-one. (17) At that early age he saw much that was hidden from virtually all of his contemporaries, however experienced or learned they were. He perceived that the so-called “Economic Depression,” which so effectively scared the American and made them docile, had been contrived by our enemies by use of the Federal Reserve System, which had been foisted on this nation in a campaign engineered by a Warburg, imported from Germany in 1902, while his kin remained at home to ensure the defeat of that nation in the European war that began, no doubt on schedule, in 1914. He foresaw–and this, mind you, before hostilities began in Europe in 1939–that the “Depression,” which was being cunningly prolonged to subjugate the American people, “break their spirits,” and “make the greatest possible number dependent on the Government,” would culminate in a planned war in which “American youth by the millions will be conscripted into armies to be sent to Asia and Europe to fight the battle of world Communism.” (That, remember, was two and one-third years before our great War Criminal was able to stampede American cattle into the war that he and his masters had instigated in Europe.) Yockey understood–as many individuals do not, even today–that the gradual imposition of Communist slavery on the Americans began when Warburg, Baruch, and other Jewish herdsmen cozened the boobs into thrusting their necks into the yoke of the White Slave Act, officially called the Sixteenth Amendment, which imposed the admittedly Marxist device of an income tax. He perceived, as did few men of supposed financial acumen, that the bonds issued by the alien government in Washington were fraudulent and would never be redeemed for their face value in real money, although their owners might be given some counterfeit currency printed by the Treasury in Washington and progressively depreciated. And he also perceived that virtually the whole of the educational system had come under the control of typical American “educators” and “intellectuals,” who will say anything for a fast buck, while the press, including both most of the newspapers and the popular periodicals, was even more directly controlled and often owned by the aliens, who were using it to defile and pervert the minds of the young and prepare them for use as expendable animals abroad or as obedient zombies at home.

(17. “The Tragedy of Youth” appeared, under the date of 21 August 1939, in Social Justice, a weekly periodical that was published by a Catholic ecclesiastic, Father Charles Coughlin, until the Jews bribed or frightened his venal superiors in the Church to suppress a publication that was making some of the serfs discontented. In the article, Yockey uses such terms as “a conservative, Christian view of life,” perhaps as a courtesy to the editor. The term ‘Christian’ at that time and for decades thereafter was a convenient designation for the established traditions of our civilization as distinct from Jewish influences, which the word was thought to exclude, and it carried no necessary implication of religious beliefs.)

All that is obvious now–except to the verbosely “intellectual” parrots who learn from the New York Times and its subsidiaries what line of chatter will keep them fashionable and hopeful aspirants to bakhshish from their masters–but if we can recapture in our minds the climate of opinion when he wrote, we cannot but be mightily impressed by the perspicacity of an adolescent of twenty-one. I will frankly admit that in the summer of 1939, although I was older than Yockey and had carried my studies into many areas of human history that he never had the leisure to investigate, and although I had no illusions about the fetid mass of traitors, enemy aliens, and looters in Washington, I grossly underestimated the power and even the racial solidarity of the Jews. And I knew of no one who estimate our plight more accurately. Had I read Yockey’s article when it was published, I should have dismissed it as an alarmed apprehension of unlikely future contingencies rather than a description of what had already happened.

For the acuity of perception that he then evinced, Yockey had no need of an historical theory. But since The Enemy of Europe is written in terms of history, it will be necessary briefly to examine that philosophical structure.

CYCLICAL HISTORY

Imperium, as I have said, is based on The Decline of the West. In large part, its premises are Spengler’s conclusions. A critique of the philosophy of history that the two works have in common would require a large tome; it will suffice here to indicate some considerations that are crucial to an estimate of it.

That history is cyclical in the sense that nations and empires rise and fall by some strange fatality in constant succession, has been a commonplace since the first rational study of human societies and was specifically stated by Herodotus. The opinion that the fatality is quasi-biological–that civilized societies are themselves organisms that necessarily pass through the life-cycle of all living things, being born, growing to maturity, and ineluctably progressing to senility and death–is doubtless much older than the elder Seneca, to whom we owe the first clear statement of it. (18)

(18. Most conveniently consulted in Peter’s Fragmenta historicorum Romanorum; in the editio minor (Lipsiae, Teubner, 1883), pp. 292f.)

That the several human species have produced more than one civilization is indubitable. There have been numerous organized and powerful societies (e.g., the Huns) that we may classify as barbarous rather than civilized, but, no matter how strict our standards, we must at least recognize the cultures of Sumeria-Babylonia, Egypt, China, and India as civilizations in the full sense of that word, and also as civilizations separated from our own by an impassable abyss: we can observe their deeds, so far as the facts can be ascertained from written records or by archaeological research, and we can read what is preserved of their literatures, but we must observe those peoples from the outside, and the greater our knowledge of their cultures, the greater our awareness that we are studying the operation of minds and instincts fundamentally different from our own. (19) To be sure, we can observe their behavior and even account for it, as, mutatis mutandis, we study the behavior of elephants or baboons, but we can no more establish a rapport with the inner consciousness of those people than we can with the consciousness of the animals, except by such a flight of sentimental imagination as enabled James Oliver Curwood to report so vividly the thoughts of wolves.

(19. For a clear distinction between two kinds of mentality, each of which is fundamentally incomprehensible to the other, see the epochal work of Professor William S. Haas, The Destiny of the Mind, East and West, New York, 1956. See also the socio-psychological study by G‚ryke Young, Two Worlds, Not One, London, 1969. The identification of two virtually antithetical types of mentality does not, of course, mean that there may not be other types, as numerous as civilizations or even more numerous. When we imagine that the minds of other races work in the same way as ours, we merely delude ourselves dangerously.)

Given the plurality of civilizations and the biological analogy, it remained for Spengler to identify a number of discrete civilizations and postulate that each went through a life-cycle that could be defined chronologically, just as we know with fair exactitude at what age a human being will become adolescent, will reach maturity, and will become senile. The synchronisms that Spengler established between the various civilizations have been the subject of endless discussion and controversy, but we need consider here only the one of his premises on which the entire structure rests and by which that structure must stand or fall.

Spengler identifies as two entirely separate and discrete civilizations the Classical (“Apollonian”), c. 1100 B.C.–A.D. 300, and the Western (“Faustian”), c. A.D. 900–2200. These are the two for which we have the fullest information, and between them Spengler establishes some of his most brilliant synchronisms (e.g., Alexander the Great corresponds to Napoleon). Even a century ago, this dichotomy would have seemed almost mad, for everyone knew and took for granted that whatever might be true of alien cultures, our own was a continuation, or, at least, revival of the Classical. Spengler’s denial of that continuity was the most radical and startling aspect of his historical synthesis, but so great has been his overshadowing influence that it has been accepted by a majority of the many subsequent writers on the philosophy of history, of whom we may mention here only Toynbee, Raven, Bagby, and Brown. (20) The Classical, we are told, was a civilization like the Egyptian, now dead and gone and with no organic connection with our own.

(20. Everyone knows the great work of Toynbee, A Study of History, and I trust that I need not again point out that the twelve volumes contain two distinguishable conceptions of the historical process, since the conceptions on which were based the first four volumes become uncertain and fluctuating in the fifth, after which his consideration of history takes a new direction, practically at right angles to the earlier one. The other works that I have cited here are less well known: Alexander Raven, Civilisation as Divine Superman, London, 1932; Philip Bagby, Culture and History, London, 1958; Lawrence A. Brown, The Might of the West, New York, 1963. I list these four works as particularly significant, since each takes its departure from Spengler and moves in a different direction. All historionomic studies after Spengler are either commentaries on his work or attempts to refute it, and a bare listing of the more important would require a dozen pages or more.)

Spengler (whom Brown especially follows in this respect) supports his drastic dichotomy by impressively contrasting Graeco-Roman mathematics and technology with our own; from that contrast he deduces differences in the perception of space and time, exhibited particularly in music, and reaches the conclusion that the Classical Weltanschauung was essentially static, desiring and recognizing only a strictly delimited and familiar world, whereas ours is dynamic and exhibits a passionate yearning for the infinite and the unknown. One can advance various objections to the generalizations I have so curtly and inadequately summarized (e.g., is the difference in outlook really greater than that between the “classical” literature of Eighteenth-Century Europe and the Romanticism of the following era?), but the crucial point is whether the differences, which belong to the order that we must call spiritual for want of a better term, (21) are fundamental or epiphenomenal.

(21. It should be unnecessary to state explicitly that in discussions of cultures and historical events the word ‘spiritual’ is used to designate the determinants of human conduct that lie between the strictly physiological and the strictly rational, and therefore implies no belief in immortal souls or the mythology of any religion or comparable superstition. It must always be borne in mind that the spiritual components of individuals and hence of societies are biological, transmitted genetically in human as in other mammals, whether or not the innate instincts fully emerge into consciousness, and whether or not they are somewhat modified by circumstances or education before they determine action.)

The fortunate preservation of vestiges of Classical culture during the Dark and Middle Ages may be explained in various ways, but our Western culture today is admittedly the product of the Renaissance, which was so named because it was from the first believed to be a rebirth of the Classical. In all the civilized nations of Europe the best minds of our race spontaneously turned to Graeco-Roman antiquity for models in literature, the fine arts, politics, philosophy, and the art of living, (22) and sought to model the whole of European society on the great ages of Greece and Rome, so far as that was feasible without inciting the revolutionary violence of mass movements, which they instinctively feared. What is most significant is that their admiration and emulation was not indiscriminately directed toward the whole of the Classical in Spengler’s loose use of that word as a synonym for the whole of Graeco-Roman history, but exclusively to the chronologically small part of that history which they esteemed as classical in the strict sense which they gave to that word: essentially the flowering of Athens in Greece, and of Rome in the last centuries of the Republic and the Augustan period, i.e., the periods in which the strictly pagan civilization of antiquity reached its apogee. For the great heaps of theological trash accumulated in both Greek and Latin before the fall of the Roman Empire, they had no real respect, and they likewise rejected the non-Christian works of the long decadence of the Roman Empire, except insofar as those ages of dwindling intelligence preserved fragments of, or information about, the great eras. In other words, the best minds of the Renaissance rejected the ages of Greek and Roman history in which the populations were mongrelized and the culture contaminated by the Orientals who became its representatives–and this rejection was an instinctive aversion, for I have found no indication that any scholar of the Renaissance was aware of the racial mutation in the populations of antiquity.

(22. Discussion of, and disputes about, the Renaissance are innumerable. For a fair evaluation, see R.R. Bolgar, The Classical Heritage, Cambridge, 1954. All recent discussions of the era take their departure from Jacob Burckhardt’s The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy (1860), which is of great value, although it has been furiously criticized, especially by persons with ecclesiastical interests. (There are several English translations; Middlemore’s, the only one I have spot-checked, is quite good.) Much of the tedious disputaillerie about the Renaissance could be avoided if it were remembered that most of the major Humanists held important positions in the Church or some government and therefore had to deal professionally with such matters as ecclesiastical politics and doctrines, whatever they privately believed, and also that they formed an intellectual aristocracy, had no concern for hoi polloi (however incomprehensible that may be to persons imbued with the mysticism about “democracy” that is in fashion at present) and, quite apart from considerations of prudence, had no wish to stir up the superstitions and blind emotions of the masses.)

So strong was this spontaneous esteem for the great ages of pagan antiquity that it prevailed over the opposition of both Church and secular rulers. The more alert ecclesiastics did not fail to perceive that the rebirth of pagan antiquity was bad for their business, but the wiser ones perceived that the intellectual enthusiasm could not be successfully repressed and elected to join what they could not defeat. Many rulers of the time were doubtless embarrassed. We can imagine the sentiments of the first Sforza, a peasant become a duke, as he watched comedies performed in Latin and pretended to appreciate humor that depended on linguistic subtleties. We owe a good phrase to the first James of England, who warned his sons that base-born men might speak better Latin, but no one could criticize the King’s English. He thus differed from Lord Chesterfield, who complacently remarked to his son that gentlemen are apt to speak better Latin than professional scholars, for gentlemen study only the real classics, whereas the scholars must read large quantities of decadent stuff in search of historical information. So great, you see, was the attraction of the true classics, so great was the affinity that our race instinctively felt for the great ages of Antiquity, that for five centuries the greater part of the youth of all educated men was devoted to mastering the modalities of ancient thought so completely that they could write Latin verse and prose of classical purity and often Greek with equal facility and classical accuracy.

This devotion to the great ages of Greece and Rome produced, in spite of economic and religious considerations, a stupendous educational effort that is without precedent or parallel in the accumulated history of mankind, (23) and ended only with the fissuring of our civilization by recrudescent barbarism and cultural sabotage. All this, Spengler and Yockey would have us dismiss as “pseudo-morphosis,” as a young civilization’s respect for a predecessor–in sum, as an hallucination–an hallucination, furthermore, of an intensity and persistence that makes unique our civilization, no matter how it is explained.

(23. It must, of course, be distinguished from such entirely different phenomena as the preservation of a sacred language (e.g. Sanskrit in India, Hebrew in Jewry), the study of a contemporary foreign language (e.g. an educated Roman’s knowledge of Greek or an educated Englishman’s knowledge of French), religious interest in foreign heiratic texts (e.g. the study of Pali by some Chinese Buddhists and of Hebrew by European Protestants), and the influence of exotic literature and thought, usually through translations (e.g. the great influence of Greek philosophy on the Islamic falasifa or the influence of Russian novelists on English writers).)

My purpose here is merely to indicate a few cogent objections to the Spenglerian historionomy, not to propose solutions of the difficulties thus indicated, which would be tantamount to formulating a new philosophy of history. I turn therefore to other considerations that preclude, I think, an uncritical and merely enthusiastic acceptance of the cyclical hypothesis.

Spengler and Brown particularly insist on the deficiencies of ancient mathematics, which they both exaggerate, (24) but if there is a dominant characteristic of our civilization, it is the capacity (in good minds) for rigorously objective observation of nature and strictly rational inferences and deductions therefrom–the mentality that has made possible our science and technology. This is the type of mentality that Professor Haas, whom I mentioned above, calls ‘philosophical’ to distinguish it from other types, and if we look through recorded history and insist on something more than the invention of simple devices, such as wheels or bows and arrows or permanent buildings, we find the first manifestation of this mentality in the Ionian philosophers, who sought to explain the universe without invoking magic and a mythology about praeterhuman beings. That is the real substance of Graeco-Roman philosophy, and we should take especial notice of the New Academy, from which comes the basic method of modern science, which depends on a nice calculation of probabilities. If we look for this rational view of the world in other civilizations, we find no trace of it in the Egyptian or the Sumerian-Babylonian, for in both of these, so far as we know, the world was always thought of as the work of gods and its phenomena attributed to magic, not to the regularity of natural laws. In the Arabian (“Magian”) civilization, we find only a few individuals, such as Averro‰s and Ibn Khaldn, who, on the basis of a knowledge of Aristotle and other Greek authors, rise above the gross superstitions of Islam and appear as mere eccentrics in a culture on which they had no influence, and we have only to read them to see how far their mentality differs from the objective use of reason that distinguishes what we may, with Haas, call the philosophical mind. In India, we find the Lok yata, of which we know through scattered references in extant literature, but this rationalism seems to have flourished only briefly and during the period before Aryan dominance was seriously threatened, after which the ‘philousian’ mentality so prevailed in the conglomerate population of India that the Hindus provide Haas with his neatest example of it, and faith in the supernatural made the physical world seem nugatory and even illusory. In China, although the nocturnes of Confucius and Mencius are relatively free of gross superstition, and the Fa Chia, a pragmatism confined to a ruling ‚lite, considered society in implacably realistic terms, there is no evidence of a truly philosophical attempt to ascertain the laws of nature. We find, therefore, in our civilization a type of mentality paralleled only in Graeco-Roman antiquity, where, significantly, it is the mentality of men of our race.

(24. Greek mathematics (of which a convenient conspectus may be found in B.L. van der Waerden’s Science Awakening, New York, 1963) sufficed to produce the machine for calculating planetary motions, often called a computer, that was found in the wreckage of an ancient ship off Anticythera, and of which everyone now knows, thanks to the scribblers of wonder-books, who think it helps them prove that the earth was colonized by “astronauts.” On the mathematics requisite for the construction of ancient artillery and the calculation of trajectories, see the article by Werner Soedel and Vernard Foley in the Scientific American, CCXL, 3 (March 1979), pp. 150–160.)

The cardinal flaw in the historical theories of Spengler and Yockey is an almost perverse equivocation about the biological reality of race. Both strive to make race more or less independent of genetics, although they do not go so far as does Alexander Raven, who would reduce civilization to a “super-organic” idea. In The Enemy of Europe (p. 43), Yockey insists that “the idea of vertical [= linear, i.e., hereditary] race is dead…. The race one feels in oneself is everything, the anatomico-geographic group whence one comes means nothing,” and he even deplores the racial policy of the National Socialist r‚gime as “an enormous tragedy.” (25) It is true that Yockey, following Spengler, had the strange notion that the physical characteristics of race, such as the cephalic index, were determined by the landscape and soil, not be genes, in proof whereof “long-headed Jews from Sicily, and short-headed ones from Germany, produced offspring with the same average head measurement, the specifically American one.” (26) Spengler was taken in by some of the propaganda for an American “melting pot” and especially by the hoax contrived by Franz Boas, a twisted little Jew, who popped into the United States, was, for undisclosed reasons, made Professor of Anthropology in Columbia University, and founded a school of fiction-writing called “social anthropology,” (27) It is also true that Spengler and Yockey, unlike Raven, do not categorically deny that race in the accepted meaning of that word does determine the outlook of a people and hence the quality of their civilization, but they create some confusion by using ‘race’ and ‘thoroughbred’ to designate a high degree of excellence in individuals who, it seems, are largely the product of the soil of the region in which they reside. They simply ignore the vast amount of scientific evidence that the potentiality of every individual is unalterably determined by his heredity, although obviously his development will be affected by nutrition and other environmental factors and, of course, by sheer accident, which may terminate his life at any stage.

(25. One hears that Yockey’s opinion may have been determined by awareness of his mixed Irish and Spanish ancestry, but such speculations are nugatory. A novelist can know all the inner thoughts and motivations of his characters, but when we deal with living persons, the motives of their actions are usually obvious, but an attempt to ascertain by psychological analysis the source of rationally expressed opinions will usually end in a quagmire of subtle hypotheses. If it can be shown that Yockey was in fact embarrassed by his ancestry, it will be necessary to determine the percentage of influence to be assigned to that sentiment and also to (a) the authority of Spengler, (b) the political doctrine of Moeller, whom I shall mention in the next note, or any one of a score of writers connected with the National Socialist movement, (c) one or more of a hundred other books touching on this subject that Yockey may have read, (d) what he was taught in his youth and took for granted, (e) lectures that he may have heard at some time, (f) conversations with one or more respected friends, (g) veneration for writers of genius, such as Spengler and Montaigne, whose ancestry was to some extent tainted, (h) affection for respected friends of comparable ancestry, (i) consideration of the practical political problem I shall mention in the next note, (j) fear lest a scientific ethnology, recognizing a multiplicity of sub-races, would produce a hopeless multiplicity of subdivisions of the population, comparable to the jungle of sub-castes in India, as was, for example, predicted by Dr. Guido Landra when he attacked the basic National Socialist conception of race in his lectures in the University of Berlin in 1939, where, under Hitler, he enjoyed a freedom of speech that is denied to American biologists, even at Yale and Harvard, which were once respectable universities, (k) a publicist’s desire to minimize potential obstacles to the European unity he wanted to promote, and (l) other possible influences that do not occur to my mind at the moment of writing.)

(26. Imperium, p. 275; the information comes from The Decline of the West, Vol. II, p. 119. Spengler’s belief that such spurious (and inherently preposterous) data had been empirically verified was probably crucial in his thought, but there were many other influences, particularly the doctrine that a man may belong “spiritually” to a race or sub-race to which he does not belong biologically–a belief held by many of his contemporaries, notable Moeller, whose Das Dritte Reich (Hamburg, 1923) was a major source of National Socialism; see also H.-J. Schwierskott, Arthur Moeller van den Bruck und der revolution„re Nationalismus in der Weimarer Republic (G”ttingen, 1962). The urge to minimize or conceal biological and even cultural differences is related to the practical problem that has confronted every ruler and statesman since Sumerian times: the need to create a state (which is necessarily territorial) by inducing some cohesive unity among the more or less diverse peoples who are residing in that territory at the time and whom it is not expedient to expel. This was an acute problem throughout Europe, including Germany, where the proverbial differences in temperament between the typical Prussian and the typical Bavarian could seem as great as a difference between major races to a population that had, for the most part, little contact with non-Aryan races except the chameleon-like Jews with their racial ability to simulate the manners of other races when it is profitable to do so.)

(27. A typical example is a “study” concocted by one of Boas’s creations, Dr. Ruth Benedict, whose Patterns of Culture (1934) purported to contain an “anthropological investigation” of the Zu¤i Indians, who were a model of the perfect society, uncompetitive, deeply religious, peace-loving, totally egalitarian, sexually adjusted, etc. — all this put out as an object-lesson for the vile white Americans, whose vices deprived them of such bliss. Gullible Americans put their common sense in cold storage when they saw that the preposterous tale was told by a Ph.D. from Columbia and labeled “scientific.” Virtually every significant statement in the book was found to be false by responsible investigators who actually observed the Zu¤i (Esther Goldfrank, FLorence Hawley Ellis, J.M. Roberts, William Smith, Li An-che, Philipp Farb, et al.), although they politely pretended to believe that Mrs. Benedict, Ph.D., did “inadequate field work,” i.e., that she would have told the truth, had she not been incompetent, feckless, and irresponsible. I need not say that Patterns of Culture was cunningly adjusted to the opinions and superstitions prevalent in the 1930s and designed to benumb the minds of its readers.)

This attempt to minimize the biological nature of men is paradoxical in writers who not only recognize that the greater part of human conduct is determined by instincts and tropisms that are largely subconscious, but so restrict the function of reason as to make it virtually without effect on the course of history. We are told–and the proposition is illustrated by examples drawn from the history of our race–that great men, who determine events rather that chatter or write about them, have a ‘tact’ or instinct that enables them to make correct decisions with so little reliance on their rational powers that they may not know why they took the action that made them victorious or successful in a given undertaking. Their strength comes, not from superior powers of cognition and cogitation, but from a faith in their own destiny. The psychological problem cannot be analyzed here, (28) but if we accept the claim that even the greatest men are basically irrational, we thereby attribute to heredity an absolute power over human conduct, of which it becomes the sole determinant, since it is beyond question that in all mammals, including men, instincts are innate and genetically transmitted. The logical conclusion to be drawn from Spengler’s psychology, therefore, is that biological race is supremely important. Granting that “the race one feels in oneself” is what counts, what one feels (as distinct from what one may simulate) is genetically determined.

(28. A good example may be seen in generals who are credited with genius, such as Napoleon and George Patton, who seem to make strategic and tactical decisions by some instinctive feeling for the situation and to take risks that make their staffs turn pale, but are victorious because they either sensed or calculated the enemy’s reactions more accurately than their subordinates. Before we assume that such men act by a super-rational instinct, we must be certain that what is involved is not a phenomenal power to solve extremely complex problems quickly–a power comparable in its way to the mental operations of a “lightning calculator,” who performs complex arithmetical and mathematical calculations with an ease and rapidly that startle us, but who certainly does not know the answer by instinct. Hitler’s decision to send troops into the Rhineland in 1936 over the protests of all his diplomats and generals, who predicted certain disaster, was once regarded as a proof of mystically intuitive powers, but we can now see that he estimated the political situation in France more accurately than his experts. Even so shrewd a psychologist as Jung was deceived by what was probably a strictly rational operation by an extraordinarily lucid mind.)

Yockey’s denunciation of “materialistic race-thinking” does have some basis in the lamentably elementary state of our present knowledge of racial genetics, which may be compared to the state of chemical science at the death of Lavoisier. The natural laws that determine the inheritance of physiological characteristics, such as color of eyes or olfactory sensitivity, are fairly well ascertained, but we are far from being able to identify racial genotypes. The problem is of enormous complexity, and is further complicated by the migratory and adventurous proclivities of our own race. Everyone knows, for example, that the Chinese are Mongolians, but few know that even as relatively late as the Fourth Century there was at least one Chinese Emperor (Ming) who was evidently a Nordic, having blue eyes, blond hair, and a flowing yellow beard. Even these distinctive traits are not necessarily united–everyone has seen persons with blue eyes and black hair, for example–and no one should be astonished that we find in China portraits of men in whom “the flat face is Mongoloid, but the wide open eyes are Europoid.” (29) There are many hybrids and racial traits often inextricable confused–a fact which greatly impresses thoughtless “intellectuals,” who, if they had lived in the time of Lavoisier, would doubtless have clamored for legislation to forbid discrimination on the grounds that the four recognized elements, earth, air, fire, and water, are not found in a pure state, whence it follows that it is wicked to recognize differences between them and to bathe in water rather than in mud or a bonfire.

(29. The phrase is from Professor Otto Mänchen-Helfen’s The World of the Huns (Berkeley, 1973), p. 372, where other examples of racial mixture in China in the early centuries of our era may be found.)

Although we can, within limits, determine the transmission and inheritance of physical traits, and although we know that intellectual capacity, as shown by intelligence tests, is genetically determined, we know virtually nothing about the biological mechanism that transmit the almost infinitely complex elements of human consciousness and subconscious being. In certain instances, at least, the psychic elements may be independent of the strictly physiological. No anthropologist or geneticist can explain the fact that there are Jews, members of Yahweh’s Master Race, who exhibit the physical characteristics of other races. The Jews in China, for example, seem to Western eyes, at least, indistinguishable from the Mongolians among whom they reside, although they are spiritually and mentally full members of the Self-Chosen People. We must assume that the Jews, who have preserved their racial identity and cohesion through so many centuries, have an empirical knowledge of genetics much greater than our own, but our knowledge is so limited that we can neither confirm nor disprove Dr. Alfred Nossig’s terrifying boast, “A single little drop of Jewish blood influences the mentality of entire families, even through a long series of generations.” (30)

(30. Although Nossig’s Intergrales Judentum was published simultaneously in Vienna, Berlin, and New York in 1922, it is now extremely rare and has never been translated into English. Nossig gives his fellow Jews eminently practical advice on the ways by which they can most expeditiously attain the goal and purpose which, as he says, is implicit in the teachings of Moses, i.e., the formation of One World under their dominion. Recognizing that his race controls both Capitalism and Socialism, he calls for a co”rdinated application of both forces to put the goyim in their place–which, of course, will be good for the stupid animals, if they are docile. The statement I have translated occurs on p. 76, where Dr. Nossig goes on to claim that the “drop” of Jewish heredity, once implanted in an ancestor, will affect the brain cells (Gehirnganglien) of his descendants through many subsequent generations and thus make them susceptible to Jewish ideas of internationalism and One World. Persons of that infected heredity, therefore, are goyim who can readily be mobilized as auxiliaries and used to subjugate their own race and the entire globe to its destined Masers. Horresco referens.

There is one great difference between Spengler’s concept of race and Yockey’s. Although Spengler recognizes the Jews as a Magian people imbued with a Magian world-outlook and so instinctively different from us (and therefore at the limit incomprehensible to us), and although he knows that this alien body, this international nation, is today, as it was for centuries before the Christian Era, lodged in all the nations of the world that it can profitably exploit, he regards the natural antagonism between Jews and their hosts as basically not determined by biological race, but rather by the phase of civilization, the Jews representing a Magian culture that is much older than ours and now petrified. (Hence, of course, Toynbee’s description of the Jews as a “fossil people,” despite the absurdity of applying such a phrase to a species that is so active and powerful and, quite possibly, has a vitality much greater than our own.) Spengler asked his readers to believe that the Jews are a dwindling and disintegrating people, a negligible force in world politics and the struggle for power. I have always thought the Jews’ aspersions of Spengler’s memory a good example of their habitual ingratitude toward their most effective apologists.

Yockey, educated by events that Spengler did not live to see, regards the Jews as the dominant force in the world of 1952. He has very little to say, however, about their unvarying activity through all the centuries since they first appear in history, and he focuses his attention entirely on the present. We must therefore postpone consideration of it to a later section, and conclude our discussion of historical theory with notice of one crucial deficiency in both writers.

THE GREAT PSEUDO-MORPHOSIS

It is odd that Spengler, and even odder that Yockey, has so little to say about the prime example of what they call “pseudo-morphosis,” the acceptance of an alien element by a young culture, which accordingly strives to make its Weltanschauung conform to a pattern that is repugnant to its inner nature. As we noticed above, Spengler’s dichotomy between the “Apollonian” and the “Faustian” cultures makes him consider our Renaissance an example of such a cultural delusion, but although he recognizes the “Magian” culture as totally alien to our own, he never investigates a far more startling pseudo-morphosis, the imposition of a Magian religion on a Faustian people. And of all the writers who follow the Spenglerian conception, only Lawrence Brown had the very great merit of having perceived the tragic consequences of the fact that the culture of modern Europe was, at its very beginning, infected by a Levantine religion, so that it became “a society whose inward convictions have been at hopeless variance with the outward professions the events of history have forced it to make,” thus producing a spiritual tension that “has destroyed the peace of mind of every able man in the West for a thousand years.”

It is true that the Christianity of the West differed drastically from all the early Christian cults, including, of course, the one that in the Fourth Century made a deal with the despotic government of the decaying Empire that was still called Roman, although the Romans, for all practical purposes, had long been extinct. What Spengler calls the Faustian soul surcharged that squalid religion with its own vision of the world, incorporating in the cult its own concepts of heroism, personal honor, chivalry, esteem of womanhood, delight in visual beauty (whether in women, in architecture, or in the mimetic arts), and love of magnificent poetry, together with the racial will-to-power–all elements which were unknown to, or expressly negated by, the holy books that Europe inherited from the mongrel proletariat of the rotting ancient world. The real scriptures of Western Christianity are not the alien Bible but the Chanson de Roland, Tristan and Isolde, the Christias, Gersusalemme liberata, Paradise Lost, and the many other epics and romances of a great and surpassingly beautiful tradition that ends with Tennyson’s Morte d’Arthur and Idylls of the King–any one of which would have induced apoplexy in Tertullian, Jerome, Augustine, and the other ranting or gabbling “Fathers of the Church.” (31) And the religion, thus made at some points consonant with the Aryan ethos, was permitted to absorb and claim a monopoly of the antecedent and in some respects higher morality of our race, and for a millennium the cult so dominated our culture that the West was Christendom. But like the proverbial house built on sand, the lofty and ponderous structure could not survive the collapse of its foundations. (32)

(31. To anyone who has the patience and equanimity to read judiciously a fair sampling of the verbose screeds collected in the three hundred and eighty volumes of Migne’s Patrologia, the veneration long accorded to that motley rout of shysters, crackpots, and hallucin‚s will seem unbelievable. For a concise conspectus of the character and activity of the “Fathers,” see Joseph Wheless’s excellent Forgery in Christianity (New York, 1930). Lying for the Lord is a normal exercise of piety.)

(32. The disintegration of a long-established tradition is always perilous to a civilized society and may be disastrous. I expressed a last hope that something could be salvaged from the ruin of the religion in a booklet, Christianity and the Survival of the West, written in 1969; it is now available in a second edition (with a new postscript, but with no change in the text) published in 1978 by Howard Allen Enterprises, Cape Canaveral, Florida.)

Western Christianity, unfortunately, was saddled with its Bible, which could not be discarded or ignored because it was believed to be an historical record of actual events. Indeed, it is probable that the principal reason why our ignorant ancestors accepted the religion of the dying empire they invaded and dismembered was that the religion differed from all others known to them by its simulation of historicity in its holy book, which purported to describe events that had taken place in known parts of the world at specific times and had been witnessed by many persons, including the supposed narrators. (33) And the belief the book was a record of historical events cannot but have greatly–and tragically–affected the course of our civilization.

(33. A complementary cause was the impression produced on the invaders by the sumptuous architecture, superb engineering, beautiful literature, polished art, and elaborate social organization that had survived from earlier times in the decadent empire. There were minor causes, especially the verbal dexterity of Christian missionaries, to which some added a maual dexterity, as did St. Poppo, who used a well-known vaudeville trick to perform a miracle for Harald Blastand (“Bluetooth”), King of Denmark, and thus bring the heathen to Christ. Charlemagne’s ruthless conquest of the Saxons seemed to credulous persons evidence of the superiority of his religion rather than of the military resources of his large kingdom.)

The Bible was an incubus of which Western Christianity could not rid itself. The collection of tales that had been thrown together at the end of the Third Century by feckless evangelists, who had been too negligent to edit out even the most glaring contradictions between or even within the pieces they selected with an eye on immediate marketing of salvation, had been made canonical by imperial decrees and pitiless persecution of the numerous Christian sects that had other gospels. (34) By the time that the cult had been accepted by most of the Nordic peoples, copies of the Latin text of “God’s word” had been disseminated throughout Europe, and it was much too late to expurgate and amend the tales, let alone to assemble or compose a holy book more consonant with our racial psyche. And there were limits to the ability of even the cleverest theologian to twist the texts into a more acceptable form, unless he went so far as to pretend that the texts do not mean what they say, but are instead a kind of cryptogram with a hidden meaning, and that God’s revelation was really a kind of puzzle-contest with eternal life as the grand prize for solving his conundrums and eternal torment the penalty for submitting an incorrect answer–and that would have permitted anyone to read into the text whatever allegorical meaning or mystical soprasenso was suggested by his imagination or ambition. The best that could be done was to make the doctrine and practices of the religion depend, not on the embarrassing and irreconcilable texts, but on the decisions of a Vicar of God who had ecclesiastic authority over all Christendom, although even his power was straitly limited by vested interests and prevailing superstitions. This device had many shortcomings, but it made possible the development of Western Christianity.

(34. The Christian sect that shrewdly made a political deal with the despots of the decaying empire was one that brought with it the Jewish Old Testament, and it used the military power it thus acquired to extirpate all the competing Christian sects, including the many that rejected the Jewish compilation or logically identified Yahweh with Satan. To what extent the wily Jews actively contributed to the triumph of a sect that ensured them a privileged position in society and endless profit (plus a chance to continue their habitual wailing about “persecution”) is unknown. We need not regret the suppression of the Christian sects that practiced homosexuality, promiscuity, incest, and sacred anthropophagy, but it was a disaster that the “orthodox” were able to exterminate the Marcionists, who, though less fanatical and aggressive, may have been the largest of the various sects before piety was augmented by fire and sword. Marcion, although superstitious, was sufficiently clear-headed to perceive the utter incompatibility between the Jewish book and the doctrines of even the gospels that have been included by the “orthodox” in the New Testament part of their holy book; he was also revolted by the barbarous notion that a supposedly good god would have his own son killed. There were many other sects that rejected the Jewish pretensions. The Marcionists survived underground until at least the Fifth Century, when an “orthodox” poetaster, Prudentius, laments that the government had not yet been able to butcher all of them. Had Christianity reached us in the form of Marcionism or of one of the similar sects, it would be unnecessary for some of our contemporaries to devise ingenious sophistries to argue that the protagonist of the New Testament was not a Jew. Scores of gospels that the victorious faction did not succeed in entirely destroying have come to light in the papyri, and while they give us no high opinion of the intelligence of their superstitious authors, many of them would have served our people better then the ones that were included in the “orthodox” compilation.)

So long as the Papacy had the political power to exterminate dissenters, (35) the religion gave Europe a needed cultural unity, but by the Sixteenth Century the Protestants became bold enough to challenge the Vicar’s authority by alleging the meanings they found in selected passages of the supposed Word of God, and numerous enough to enlist the support of ambitious princes who had armies of their own. That was the beginning of the end. A century of intensive butchery produced only a conclusive demonstration that the Christians’ fierce God had become senile or cynical. He had been Johnny-on-the-spot when the Jews wanted to grab the country of the Canaanites, and he had even stopped the sun in its quotidian course above the flat earth at an elevation of about thirty thousand feet–stopped it to help his Chosen Bandits slaughter all the men, slaughter all the women, slaughter all the children, slaughter all the oxen, slaughter all the sheep, and slaughter all the asses: “all these they slew with the edge of the sword.” But when the Antichrist appeared in person in Rome–or in Germany–and gobbled up souls by the thousand, Yahweh didn’t lift a finger or even despatch a single archangel, let alone tamper with the solar system, to help his True Believers exterminate the Catholic or Protestant Children of the Devil. At the same time, increasing knowledge of the real world made the Christian myths incredible and ridiculous. The religion slowly reverted to the proletarian squalor of its origins, despite the efforts of “conservatives” to shore-up a time-honored tradition that seemed indispensable to the preservation of a civilized society. (36)

(35. Heretics appeared constantly throughout the Middle Ages, but in groups small enough to be disposed of conveniently in holy bonfires, and only the Albigenses were numerous and rich enough to call for a full-scale Crusade. An interesting attempt to patch up the religion is provided by the only surviving copy of the De duobus principiis, which was discovered and published too recently to be mentioned in the usual handbooks. The anonymous author was repelled by the gross immorality of the Old Testament and he also saw the absurdity of the conventional Christian claim that a god who lacked either the power or the will to squelch the Devil was both omnipotent and just; in the second half of his tractate, however, he tries to salvage the portions of the New Testament that were emotionally satisfying to him. Better minds were also found during the Middle Ages, as is proved by the fame of the treatise De tribus impostoribus, which was attributed to Frederick II. Hohenstaufen and others who might have written it, but they were content to smile at the passionate votaries of the three impostors (Moses, Jesus, Mahomet) with equal disdain or compassion, and they prudently refrained from denouncing what Mellin de Saint-Gelays called “la cr‚ance et estude/de l’ingorante et sotte multitude.”)

(36. Vulgus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur, is a Mediaeval aphorism that was doubtless repeated by many enlightened ecclesiastics before Cardinal Caraffa and by some for reasons that transcended professional interests, but only after the seismic shock of the French Revolution did concern for the maintenance of the social order become a major consideration in persuading educated men to give outward adhesion to a cult in which they could not believe. It seems impossible to determine whether, as a general rule, “revealed” religions inhibit by fear more crimes than they incite by fanaticism, but, given the state of our society in the Seventeenth Century, the celebrated Cardinal Dubois may have been right when he asserted that a god is an indispensable bogeyman that must be flourished to scare the masses into a semblance of civilized behavior. That question, however, cannot concern us here, where it is irrelevant. We are men of the West, who cannot believe, while rational, that facts can be ascertained by deciding what is more useful socially or most strongly tickles our fancy.)

Even at its best, however, Christianity powerfully and, indeed, immeasurably distorted our culture.

As all educated men know, Christianity is essentially a Judaized version of Zoroastrianism, as is, in fact, implied in one of the accepted legends about the nativity of its Saviour God, at which Zoroastrian priests (Magi) are said to have been in attendance. The Zoroastrian cult, reputedly founded by a Zarathustra, who, as is de rigeur for all Saviours, was born of a divinely fecundated virgin (or, what is slightly more miraculous, from several virgins simultaneously), was the archetype of all the “universal religions,” of which only Toynbee seems to have perceived the importance as a force that constricts and deforms a people’s native culture. It introduced some very peculiar and epochal notions that have been profoundly deleterious to all races influenced by them. We need mention only two cardinal points.

Zoroastrianism (and, of course, the Christian rifacimento of it) is a dualism that posits the existence of two extremely powerful gods, each of whom would be omnipotent but for the power of the other: a good god (Ahuramazda, Jehovah), who is engaged in a continuous war for supreme power with an evil god (Ahriman, Satan), with the odd consequence that although the good god is backed up by his presumably mighty son (Mithras, Jesus) and commands legions of doughty archangels, and the evil god can marshal legions of valiant devils, including all the gods previously worshipped by men, both antagonists need to recruit re‰nforcements from the puny race of mortals and accordingly struggle for the possession of individual souls. The cosmic conflict between the two gods is a desperate one, a holy war waged with all their resources and causing infinite devastation and suffering on earth, although, strangely enough, the result is a foregone conclusion and everyone knows that the good god will triumph in the end and spend the rest of eternity in joyously tormenting his captive adversary and all of that monarch’s wickedly loyal and luckless followers.

This paradoxical and amazing dualism has infected all the thinking of our Western civilization, both religious and secular. (37) It has inspired an endless series of holy wars, not only to exterminate Protestants, Catholics, or other religious agents of Satan, but also, with equally frantic religiosity, to annihilate or enslave Satanically evil nations (in the United States, successively Southerners, Spaniards, (38) and Germans). I need not remark that the dualism has survived the superstitions about the supernatural from which it came and inspires ostensibly non-religious cults, as in the Marxists’ holy war against the diabolically evil Capitalists or Fascists; and it goes without saying that when the zombies swarm out of the cesspools of Harvard or Yale to howl at Professor Jensen or Professor Shockley and prevent him from talking sense to such sane men as may remain in the academic ruins, the ignorant creatures feel that they are fighting the Devil and only their native cowardice prevents them from rending the learned men limb from limb in the faith that the facts of nature can thus be altered. (39) And, on the other hand, everyone can see that the missionaries who were once sent abroad to annoy the natives of Asia and Africa and “save souls” have been replaced by the far more pernicious gangs of “do-gooders,” who plunder us for the benefit of “underdeveloped nations” and, in so far as they are not mere racketeers, must be buoyed up by a belief that they are commending themselves to a Jehovah in whom they no longer believe.

(37. It is true that today many Christians, who either do not read their holy book or read it in an emotional fog, sincerely believe that their religion is a monotheism, having been so persuaded by adroit theologians who exploit the prevalent notion that a monotheism is, for some reason, a “higher” or “purer” cult than a polytheism, thus catering to the interests of the Jews, who have claimed to be monotheists ever since they perceived, in the second and first centuries B.C., the enormous advantages of impudently claiming that their tribal deity, Yahweh, was the Providence, or animus mundi, of Graeco-Roman Stoicism. When the Christians began to deny the existence of Jupiter, Mars, Venus, Isis, Tanit, and all the innumerable other gods of the past, and to regard them as mere myths or illusions, they rejected the explicit testimony of the “Fathers of the Church,” and of their holy book, which they thus denounced as unreliable. The religion could probably have survived that amputation, but when the Christians killed off Satan to make their religion really monotheistic, they made it intrinsically incredible. The resulting bankruptcy of the cult was wittily adumbrated by a French theologian (J. Turmel), whose urbane treatise was translated into English under the title, The Life of the Devil (New York, 1930), and published under a pseudonym, “Louis Coulange.”)

(38. Some of the promoters of the Spanish-American War doubtless had the rational purpose of seizing Cuba, Puerto Rico, and other Spanish possessions for American expansion and colonization, but enthusiasm for the war was whipped up by proclaiming a jihad, as had been done in the unconscionable war of aggression against the Southern sates. Spaniards were described as diabolic monsters of cruelty, and at least one military man attained great popularity when the press reported that he had promised to slaughter so many of the human devils that only Spanish would be spoken in Hell for the next fifty years. The prompt defeat of our hopelessly weaker opponent averted satisfaction of the Christian fanaticism and blood-lust that had been excited by the propaganda, but professions of a high moral purpose led the United States foolishly to throw away part of the spoils of the war it had won by “liberating” Cuba to make the aggression seem altruistic.)

(39. In England, Professor Eysenck, while lecturing on a strictly scientific topic that displeases Jews, was assaulted and severely injured by a swarm of vermin hatched out in the University of London.)

The Zoroastrian dualism makes weak minds susceptible to hallucinations by which they identify their interests or wishes with the cause of the Good God and excite themselves with a blind and deadly hatred of their opponents or rivals (who may have the same hallucination about them) as the innately evil agents of the Bad God, to be driven by any means, fair or foul, to the perdition to which they are damned. And nothing basic is changed by replacing Ahuramazda/Jehovah with an abstraction, such as “democracy,” and replacing Ahriman/Satan with an another, such as “aristocracy.” (40) Ironically enough, this poisonous dualism, which came to us through the Jews, now dominates the reaction against Jewish overlordship, for most of the Jews’ antagonists identify them as “the Synagogue of Satan” etc. ad nauseam, while those who do not, usually regard the Jews as an inherently and almost praeternaturally evil people, instead of regarding them rationally as a specialized race which, being a minority among all the peoples on whom it is parasitic, has learned that its will-to-power must be advanced by cunning rather than undisguised force of its own–a race, furthermore, which quite naturally regards its own interests and purposes as just and justified by either a covenant with a deity or its own intellectual superiority, much as our ancestors felt no compunction as they took a continent away from the aborigines, confident in their own manifest superiority, although some of them were foolish enough to think that the Indians must have been inspired by the Devil to try to retain possession of their own hunting grounds. So long as our minds are clouded by the Zoroastrian myth, we shall be incapable of rational thought for our own survival.

(40. This particular form of the superstition is implicit in innumerable writings that distort history to fit some pattern of “social progress,” but the reader will find both amusing and instructive an especially clear specimen, Frederic Huidekoper, Judaism at Rome, New York, 5th ed., 1883. That account of a struggle between the evil “aristocrats” and the pure-hearted “improvement party” (which, of course, was inspired and led by God’s Race) represents, so to speak, the virus in its pure state.)

A second epochal innovation of Zoroastrianism was the bizarre notion of religious “conversion,” of which the import is clearly seen in the tradition that Zarathustra’s first convert was a Turanian, i.e., a Turko-Mongolian was transformed by psychic magic into an Aryan and more than an Aryan. By the simple act of believing the stories Zoroaster told him, that alien joined the Army of God and attained an exalted position to which Aryans could attain only by believing the same stories, while Aryans who were less easily captivated by evangelical rant remained servants of Satan, the deadly foes of God, and should be exterminated as soon as possible by the Aryans, Turanians, Mongols, Semites, and others whose minds had been opened to the Gospel. The obvious effect of this superstition was to destroy awareness of the biological fact of race and replace it with a delusion that could only hasten the Aryans’ racial suicide. (41)

(41. Hastened, not initiated, because the men of our race, wherever in the world they have established themselves, cannot keep their hands off women of the native races. This lascivious fatuity, to be sure, is as universal as masculine lust, and a superior race may even regard indulgence in it as evidence of their own superiority. The great Egyptian king of the Twelfth Dynasty, Sesostris III. (Khakaure), who established border patrols to prevent the infiltration into Egypt of Nubians from conquered territory, in the very inscriptions in which he points out the racial inferiority of Blacks, boasts that he “captured their women” and “carried them off,” doubtless into Egypt as slaves, not foreseeing the terrible consequences of the inevitable miscegenation.)

The nonsensical notion that any anthropoid can be miraculously “converted” to “righteousness” by being made to believe the dualistic myth logically engenders a mystic yearning for “One World,” in which massive slaughter of the wicked Unbelievers will force the survivors of all races to unite in worship of Jesus or Democracy and thus live in a Heaven on Earth. The fatuous dream of a potential spiritual unification accounts for the current use of the term “all mankind,” which is intelligible only as parallel to such classifications as “all marsupials” or “all carnivores,” with a mystical connotation that inspires unthinking awe in many of our contemporaries, and since the fantasy is, of course, biologically impossible, (42) some childish minds, perturbed by a glimpse of reality, fester until they reach the state of the famous expert on “Mental Health,” Brock Chisholm, whose diseased mind lusted for the extermination of white men so that the whole globe could be inhabited only by coffee-colored and mindless mongrels made righteous by their equality in squalor.

(42. No one should ever have been so credulous as to believe the claims of missionaries that they “saved souls” by transforming savages or Orientals into Christians. All that the holy men accomplished by harangues and bribery (supplemented by the incontestable superiority of our hated race which was made manifest in such things as repeating rifles and the disciplined courage of British regiments) was to induce an outward assent to statements that the native mind was innately incapable of comprehending and translated into ideas acceptable to brains of quite different formation from ours. It was natural and inevitable that when the savages saw our race become so lunatic as to surrender its colonial possessions, the “Christianity” of those who did not at once revert to their native cults became what they had always understood it to be, a special kind of mumbo-jumbo. For a convenient survey of those developments, see Postchristianity in Africa, by G.C. Oosthuizen, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1968. This “anthropological” study is the more instructive because it is written by a Christian, who naturally cannot understand the real causes of the events he describes.)

Belief in the psychic magic of “conversion, furthermore, opened the way for the Bolshevism that attained its fullest development in Christianity, the devastating notion that Faith–a faith that is as thoughtless and preferably as unconscious as the “faith” of a vegetable or a mustard seed–was what counted, so that an ignorant peasant, an illiterate fisherman, or the most scurvy proletarian could make himself the superior of the noblest, the bravest, and the wisest of men–and, secure in the favor or a god who so hates learning and reason that he will “make folly the wisdom of this world,” the simpletons and morons, having become True Believers, can look forward to the delights of seeing, when the last have been made first, their betters suffer the most atrocious torments forever and forever. No idea, no menticidal poison, could be more effective in destroying the culture and even the sanity of the people in whom it has been injected. (43) And the poison, destructive of all social stability and hence of civilization itself, survived the mythology from which it sprang and persists today in the atheistic “Liberals” who bleat about the “underprivileged,” fawn on savages, and demand an “open society” that is perpetually stirred up so that the dregs on the bottom may become the scum on the top.

(43. How alien this nonsense was to the mentality of our race is shown by the fact that, professing to believe it, they promptly began to reason about Faith and erected the vast intellectual structure of Scholasticism, “comme si raison et foi pouvaient trottiner de concert,” as Maurice Gar‡on sardonically comments. The final result, of course, was Nominalism and the labefaction of the Mediaeval Weltanschauung and eventually of the alien religion that had been incorporated in it.)

Having noticed these two cardinal elements of Zoroastrianism and the religions derived from it, we need not mention others, for the vital historical question is whether this pernicious cult was Aryan in its origins or a device of aliens. To be sure, it became the religion of the Persians. It was the religion of Darius the Great, who boasted that he was an “Aryan of the Aryans” and modestly attributed his victories to the help of Ahuramazda. It was the religion of his son, Xerxes, whose mind was so blighted by fanaticism that he boasted that he had destroyed the temples on the acropolis at Athens, where the Greeks worshipped nasty devils, and had commanded the benighted Greeks to worship his One True God. (44) It is also true that all the early legends about Zarathustra state or imply that he was an Aryan, although it may be significant that his miraculous nativity is said to have occurred in many different places, and that he is always described as an itinerant prophet who was not a native of the region in which he began to proclaim his gospel and salvage men’s souls. What is even more remarkable, the only name that the Zoroastrian cultists gave themselves in the time of the Persian Empire, so far as we know, was Airyavo danghavo, words which literally mean “the Aryan peoples.” That presumptuous appellation is obviously false in an ethnic sense, for it excludes the Aryan peoples of India, who were specifically damned as the worshippers of devils, and includes the many non-Aryans who elected to be Saved and join the Elect by believing or pretending to believe Zarathustra’s evangels. If the term the Magi chose for their cult was not just an impudent falsehood, it must have originated in a calculated use of arya (45) in its non-racial sense, “noble, excellent”: since worshippers of the good god must be good people morally superior, they could be called “the excellent people.” That would make the name comparable to the famous verbal trick by which the “Fathers of the Church,” in a time of military supremacy, called their motley followers “soldiers of Christ,” so that non-Christians could contemptuously be called “pagans” (pagani, “peasants, yokels”). (46)

(44. Xerxes does not specifically mention Athens, perhaps because the name might carry an impious suggestion that God must have been taking a nap when the Greeks, though hopelessly inferior in numbers and resources, destroyed his navy and sent him scuttling back across the Hellespont, but the allusion is unmistakable. The text of his inscription (transliterated from the cuneiform into Roman characters) may conveniently be found in Professor Roland G. Kent’s Old Persian, New Haven, 1953.)

(45. I give the well-known Sanskrit form, whence comes our ‘Aryan’; in Avestan, the dialect of the Zoroastrian holy book, the word becomes airya, as in the phrase I quoted above.)

(46. Originally a paganus was an inhabitant of a rural district (pagus) as distinct from a townsman at a time when all prosperous landowners in the countryside were citizens of a town, so that it had about the connotation of our ‘rustic.’ In the later part of the First Century it acquired the meaning of ‘civilian, common man’ (exclusive of persons of any social distinction) and was often contrasted with miles (‘soldier’); in the later Empire, agents of the secret police, who disguised themselves as individuals of the lower classes, went about pagano ritu, i.e., as ‘plainclothesmen.’ But under the Dominate, the status of the countryfolk (pagani in the first sense of the word) progressively declined to serfdom, hence the particular force of the “Fathers’ ” propagandistic word. The trick is disguised by the Christian explanation that “pagan” beliefs lingered longest in the countryside, which does have a certain basis in fact (countryfolk, perforce, remain close to nature), but should not blind us to the origin of the religious meaning in clever propaganda.)

The Zoroastrian dualism was accepted by the Aryans of Persia, (47) who vehemently repudiated their own, presumably Vedic, gods, much as Christianity was accepted by the Nordic peoples of Europe, who repudiated Odin, Thor, and their other gods as evil agents of Satan. Christianity was, of course, an Oriental cult, and the analogy makes it difficult to believe that its Zoroastrian antecedent was natively Aryan.

(47. It would be interesting but futile to speculate about the use of hallucinatory drugs to spread the Gospel. The Zoroastrian haoma has been identified by R. Gordon Wasson (Soma, Divine Mushroom of Immortality, The Hague, 1968) as a drink made from the Amanita muscaria, one of the mushrooms that are used throughout the world to produce religious experiences and visions of God. On its use when the early Christians symbolically ate the flesh of their god, see John Allegro, The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross, New York, 1970–a most informative study, although etymologies from the Sumerian and later languages are probably overworked. In our own time, as it well known, drugs are used by the more enterprising evangelists to induce piety in the victims they collect in colonies of fanatical bands.)

There are many indications that it was not. Much of the evidence is too intricate to be discussed here, and it will suffice to mention a few essentials. The name of the Saviour, however it should be spelled (Zarathustra, Zaratost, Zaratast, etc.), is not readily explicable as Indo-European and may come from another language. There is reason to believe that the cult’s holy book, the Avesta (a title which may not be Indo-European), was not composed in Persian, but was translated into a late Persian dialect from another, probably Semitic, language. (48) It is even possible that in the time of Darius the sacred language of the Zoroastrian scriptures and the liturgies recited by the Magi was Semitic, for the Persian Empire had three official languages, Old Persian, the native language of the rulers, Elamite, respected for its antiquity and still spoken at Susa, and Aramaic, the Semitic language which was most widely known throughout Persian territory and outside it, and which, accordingly, was the language commonly used by the Persians in the administration of their empire and in diplomatic correspondence with other nations. Before the extant text of the Avesta was written down, (49) the Greeks of the Hellenistic Age who interested themselves in the “Persian” religion found only texts in Aramaic, the language spoken by the Zoroastrian priests of their time, (50) and it is obviously possible that some of those texts were the originals, dating from the time of the Persian Empire, and not translations, as is generally supposed.

(48. This was known to Spengler (Vol. II, p. 168), who relies on scholars in the field who are cited in the article to which he refers in a footnote. The linguistic evidence is tangled, but Avestan, the dialect of the Avesta, is related to Old Persian, the language of the Persian emperors, much as the various Prakrits are related to Sanskrit, and the natural inference is that Avestan is a broken-down and late form of Old Persian, rather than an early dialect of some region (Bactria?) or an hypothetical brogue of the Medes. It does resemble the decadent Persian of the last days of the Empire, which, however, is centuries earlier than the date to which most scholars (e.g. Darmesteter in the concluding part of the introduction to the third volume of his version of the Zend-Avesta) assign the extant text of the Avesta. To my mind, that is conclusive. Granting that some of the gathas in the Avesta probably represent statements actually made by the prophet known as Zarathustra, it does not follow that the statements were made in Avestan. It is likely that many of the statements in the New Testament were actually made by one or another of the various Jesuses of whom the protagonist is a composite figure, but no one would believe that those agitators spoke in Greek to the Jewish rabble.)

(49. In the First Century, according to Darmesteter, whom I cited above. Other scholars would place it in the first century B.C., i.e. at the end of the Hellenistic Age and, of course, later than the Greek authors in question.)

(50. See J. Bidez & F. Cumont, Les Mages hellenis‚s, Paris, 1973 (=1938), especially pp. 35, 88-91; cf. pp. 34, 44. The English translation of Cumont’s Oriental Religions now in print dates from 1911, and is naturally less complete than his fourth edition (Paris, 1929); in the translation, he notes that the Zoroastrian texts were in Aramaic, but by an odd slip he speaks in one passage as though the Aramaic-speaking evangelists were Persians, although he must know better. This is corrected in his fourth edition.)

There is one significant datum which seems not to have been given the emphasis it deserves. As everyone knows, Zoroastrian priest were always called Magi, but Magi was not originally a word of religious meaning: it was an ethnic term that designated a certain peculiar people who lived in Media but were in some way distinct from the ordinary Medes, and during the early centuries of Zoroastrianism only men of that peculiar tribe could be priests and their sacred office could be transmitted only by hereditary descent through females. (51) That fact is as startling as though in the Roman Catholic Church the only word for a priest was ‘Irishman,’ and during the Middle Ages only pure-blooded Irish (i.e., having an Irish mother as well as father) could perform sacraments. The word Magi, I believe, creates a very strong presumption that the propagators of the religion were not Aryans. (52) It may be only a coincidence that according to a tradition in the Jews’ holy book (53) which seems to have an historical basis in events that took place before the time of Zarathustra, colonies of Jews had been planted “in the cities of Media.” But since forgery and imposture have always been normal Jewish devices, no weight can be given to their claim that Zarathustra was a Jew and wrote in Hebrew. (54)

(51. Hence their famous custom of engendering offspring by sexual intercourse with their mothers or, if that was not possible, with sisters.)

(52. This must be distinguished, of course, from the custom, common among the Greeks, by which the priest of a local temple or shrine was a descendant of the family on whose land the sanctuary was built, and also from the formation of a caste of professional holy men, such as the Brahmanas of India.)

(53. 4 Reg. (= 2 Kings), 17.6 & 18.11.)

(54. See the texts translated from the Syriac by Bidez & Cumont, op. cit., Vol. II, pp. 103-104, 129, 131, and the texts cited in their Vol. I, p. 50, nn. 3,4. At the date it was made, the Jews’ claim that Zarathustra was a Jew was doubtless just a normal part of what the authors, apropos of an impudent attempt to appropriate the Etruscans, call “la propagande juive pour imposer aux paiens se croyances” (Vol. I, p. 238), although the purpose more commonly may have been to bamboozle ignorant goyim by making them believe in the vast superiority of Yahweh’s Master Race. The Christians naturally forged ahead in much the same way and concocted “proof” that Zarathustra had been a prophet of the advent of their Jesus; see, op. cit., Vol. II, pp. 118, 127, 130, 135.)

The really fundamental and cogent consideration is the enormous difference between the “universal” religion and the spirit of all the certainly Aryan religions of which we know, especially the Vedic, the Greek, and Norse, which we know in detail. The discrepancy is so great that even Toynbee felt obliged to conjecture that Zarathustra (whom he accepts as an Aryan) must have been instigated by a Jew. (55)

(55. A Study of History, Vol. I, p. 81, n. 1.)

The very idea of evil gods is alien and repugnant to the spirit of all authentically Aryan religions, which are never so irrational as to inject good and evil deities into a universe in which the very concepts of moral ‘good’ and moral ‘evil’ are indubitably created by human societies for their own purposes and correspond to nothing whatsoever in the world of nature. Wickedness can exist only within a given society of human beings and can be defined only in terms of the standards of morality that the society more or less instinctively applies to relationships among its own members. Only infantile minds can attribute moral iniquity to hurricanes, volcanoes, dynamite, and other natural phenomena that may be baneful to us; primitive peoples, ignorant of the causes, may superstitiously attribute such phenomena to supernatural forces and may imagine gods that are indifferent to human welfare or have been angered by some supposed offense, but so long as they have a vestige of rationality they will not imagine gods who are inherently evil and seeking to promote wickedness. A notion that species of animals (e.g. snakes, sharks, tigers) that defend themselves against us or prey on us, or that species of human beings that pursue their own advantage to our detriment (e.g. Japanese, Jews) are wicked because they obey the universal law of life is simply irrational. And when a pack of fanatics claims that all persons who do not share their superstitions are diabolically evil, they are insane, prevalent as that form of insanity may be. The Zoroastrian dualism may fairly be called the most devastating mental disease that ever became epidemic on this planet.

The Aryan religions are not infected by that black delusion. (56) Their gods, like the forces of nature, are multiple and, as is only reasonable, are sometimes opposed to one another in their relations with mortals. Venus and Juno may each work against the other, just as every day the force of sexual attraction enters into conflict with the requirement of sexual fidelity that makes marriage an indispensable social institution. In the great epic of our race, the Iliad, which deals with a war to the death between the Achaeans and the Trojans, some of the Greek gods favor one nation while other Greek gods favor the enemies of the Greeks. No Greek was so irrational as to believe there was only one god and then say “Gott mit uns!” as Christians do when they embark on holy wars against one another. In the Norse religion, the Aesir and Vanir are united in Asgard, but often at odds with one another, as are the forces of nature to which mortals are subject. The Aryan mind could never, of its own accord, have conceived of so monstrous an inversion of religion as appears in the mad fanaticism of the Zoroastrians, who converted the Aryan gods of the Vedas into fiends, and of the Christians, who converted the gracious gods of the Graeco-Roman pantheon into malevolent devils.

(56. A conspectus of the basic concepts of Aryan religions may be found in the admirably concise work of Professor Hans Gnther, available in an English version by Vivian Bird and Roger Pearson, The Religious Attitudes of the Indo-Europeans, London, 1967. I am aware of the danger that we may identify as characteristically Aryan the qualities that we, as Aryans, admire, but a certain objectivity may be attained by considering what is admired in the great literatures of our race.)

The Aryan were not so foolish as to imagine that their gods were omnipotent; their gods are far more powerful than we, but they too are subject to Destiny, the impersonal force that is inherent in the structure of the physical world. They were not so credulous as to mistake the ravings of an hallucin‚ or the sophistries of a theologian for revelations of truth: they had no gospels, and every one knew that poets and skalds were free to invent or modify stories about the gods that might be no more or less truthful than folktales. The Aryans did not have the hatred of civilized life that inspires the dualists’ notion of Faith, a blind belief in certain tales by which ignorance and credulity are exalted above learning and reason. The Aryans respected the gods they imagined, but with a manly self-respect also; they did not cringe and cower before celestial despots, as do races with the slave-mentality and Sklavenmoral of the Near East.

The Aryan spirit is innately aristocratic and heroic. Aryan man, when he is most fully Aryan, is driven by a spiritual passion to excel, (57)–to realize, at whatever cost to himself, whatever capacity for greatness he may have within him. And while he rationally expects to find perfection in gods and men no more than in the world of physical reality, he has innately certain ideals of personal honor, fairness, and manly compassion that are incomprehensible to other races. (58) Both of these characteristics, however, although they are the source of all the greatness our race has attained, make Aryans vulnerable. The very superiority of men who approach our racial ideal makes it easy for a parasitic race or our own criminal elements to rouse against us the inferior’s resentment of superiority and to excite envy and malice in proletarian herds, thus disrupting our society in what Ortega y Gasset calls, “the revolt of the underman.” And artful appeals to our sense of fairness and compassion can excite, especially in females, the irrational sentimentality that ignores the fact that a cohesive society is an organism and, like all organisms, can live only by excreting its waste products–the grim fact that, by the unalterable laws of biology, we, like all mammals, bring to birth biological tares and misfits, which must be eliminated, if the species is not to degenerate to eventual extinction. And what the struggle for life does automatically for other mammals, our species, being capable of reason and purposeful social organization, must do deliberately–or perish.

(57. As in Iliad, VI. 208, perhaps the most memorable line of our great epic, which is repeated at XI. 784.)

(58. An excellent work, which will enable us to see ourselves as others see us, is Maurice Samuel’s You Gentiles (New York, 1924; recently reprinted). Jews feel only contempt for a race so mentally inferior that its men prefer to meet their enemies in a fair fight instead of stabbing them in the back when off their guard or giving them a poisoned cup under the guise of friendship. And if we consider the matter objectively, they may be right: “c’est la sup‚riorit‚ de ma race sur la v”tre: la v”tre mourra, la mienne durera.” FarrŠre formulated the only biologically valid criterion of superiority. I remember an erudite Jewish professor who could not perceive that a chivalrous respect for valiant and honorable opponents differed from the pawkish notions about forgiveness set forth in some parts of the New Testament medley. Apropos of the hoax about the “six million” that the Jews are using to bleed the Germans whom we conquered for them, he said, with arrogant candor, “The stupid Christians forgive enemies, by WE exact vengeance to the last drop of their blood.” Whether he is correct in his confidence in his race’s superiority, the future will determine–probably the near future. The other races, needless to say, also despise us for our indulgence toward them, each in terms of their own standards, and eagerly look forward to the ruin we seem determined to bring upon ourselves.)

The Christian version of the Zoroastrian dualism was Judaized, and Ahuramazda was replaced by the Jews’ tribal god, Yahweh. As a result, our race lived for centuries in terror of the capricious and ferocious deity of the Old Testament, and no phrase is more common in the harangues of our holy men than “fear of God.” Christians had to believe they were at the mercy of the supernatural monster who, for example, deliberately alienated the mind of an unnamed Egyptian king so that he would have an opportunity to afflict the whole of the obviously innocent population of Egypt with every imaginable disease, plague, and disaster, even murdering the Egyptians’ children, so that his pet Jews could gloat over the torments of the goyim, who were evidently made so imbecile by their suffering that they permitted the Jews to “borrow” all their valuable property, gold, silver, jewels, and even wearing apparel, and then run away with the loot. Yahweh, naturally, repealed the law of gravity long enough to permit the swindlers to escape with the stolen property and to set a trap to destroy more goyim. And the terrible deity is credited with many similar exploits, all as vicious and immoral from every point of view, except, of course, that of the Jews who created him in their own image. And thoughtful Christians could derive little reassurance from their theologians’ story that the savage god had finally repented of his blunder in picking the Jews as his pets, for a thoughtful man must quail before the appalling malevolence of the Jewish hymn of hate that closes the New Testament and is the Christians’ favorite horror-story.

Thinking men were equally depressed to learn from that New Testament that Yahweh, having repented of one blunder and decided to let his erstwhile pets kill his son, bestowed his divine favors on the very dregs of a squalid, ignorant, and dirty population in Palestine to emphasize his new commands, which, quite logically, make Believing Christians dote on everything that is lowly, inferior, debased, diseased, deformed, and degenerate.

For Aryans, including, of course, the Germanic peoples who invaded the moribund Empire that had once been Roman, Christianity has been a deadly and perhaps fatal poison, a delusion that forced our people to act against the dictates of their own biological nature. (59) If ever in recorded history there was a cultural pseudo-morphosis, that was it.

(59. Christianity was also deleterious to our race biologically, but we cannot measure or even estimate its dysgenic effect. It certainly encouraged the preservation and reproduction of the unfit, and, through both monasticism and the distribution of social rewards, it inhibited the reproduction of superior men and women. Having given the Jews a privileged position and enriched them, it facilitated Jewish penetration of our society by a common ruse: Aryan males were hooked by offering them smiling Jewesses with generous or lavish dowries; the Jewesses, although perfunctorily sprinkled with holy water, had naturally been taught by the inspiring examples of Esther and Judith that their loyalty was to their race, not to the goy whose bed they shared and whom the would manipulate in the interests of their kind. A Jewish strain, conceivably as potent as Dr. Nossig claimed (see note 30 above), was thus planted in many gentle, noble, and even royal families and may, as some believe, account for their decadence, both mental and physical, as frequently occurs when incompatible genetic strains are combined. But statistics on all these points are lacking, and if we had them, we should only face the impossible task of measuring what happened against what would have happened, if Europe under the Germanic peoples had adopted some other (what other?) religion or religions. Charles Renouvier’s Uchronie (Paris, 1876) will sufficiently entertain and discourage those who must speculate about the incalculable.

An anonymous writer in Instauration (Aug. 1980) sought to explain psychologically one of the most drastic and puzzling effects of Christianity on our race and civilization. When our ancestors accepted the Magian cult, they believed themselves at the mercy of a capricious and ferocious god whom they had to appease and placate by observing absurd taboos and imposing on themselves unnatural conduct their racial instincts rejected. Thus they had a sense of guilt without consciously knowing why. By not sinning in the eyes of Yahweh, they were sinning against themselves. They were biologically guilty. From this inner conflict,–from the subconscious mind’s reaction to the perpetual conflict between the innate nature of a healthy Aryan and the conduct his Christian or “Liberal” superstitions require of him,–comes the maddening sense of personal and racial guilt that has been for centuries and is today a black and monstrous incubus on the minds of our race. This explanation may well be right.)

SPENGLER VS. YOCKEY

I have tried above to exhibit briefly the magnitude of the cultural distortion that is overlooked by both Spengler and Yockey, although, according to their own doctrines, it was the imposition on the Faustian soul of a Magian ideology, the product of a totally alien civilization. Spengler, however, who goes almost as far as Toynbee in regarding the Jews as a “fossil people,” can be defended on the grounds that he regards the Faustian culture of the West as one that arose, around the year 900, among the dominant peoples who then lived in Europe, regardless of ethnic diversities or innate racial characteristics, and that Christianity was simply an element that entered into that culture. From that standpoint, our culture, whether for better or worse, was as naturally and inevitably Christian as Napoleon was a Corsican. To ask what our civilization would have been like without Christianity is like asking what George Washington would have become, had he been born of different parents. Our estimate of Spengler’s historionomy will therefore depend on our acceptance or rejection of (a) his conception of a culture as largely independent of biological race, and (b) his assumption that the Jews as such, have had no great influence over our history.

For Yockey, no such apology will serve. He follows Spengler, it is true, in his general doctrine of race, but he attributes to the Jews, whom he frequently designates as the “culture-distorters,” a vast and decisive influence over our recent history, and since he does not claim that their baneful power is a recent phenomenon, he must logically believe that it has been exercised against us in earlier centuries. If he is to give us a philosophical comprehension of the historical process, he must explain the nature, origin, and development of that power–and obviously such an explanation must include consideration of the effects of Christianity on both our people and the Jews who, for purposes that Yockey recognizes as hostile, lived among them.

As I have said before, I come neither to praise not to bury Yockey, but merely to evaluate his work. It is clear, I believe, that as an exegesis of historical causality, Imperium and, of course, its sequel are radically defective, even in terms of their own premises. They have other values. I have always believed that Imperium was enlightening and even inspiring reading for young men and women whose minds have not been irremediably blighted by the denaturing superstitions inculcated in the public schools. And both books are studies of politics, in the original and proper sense of that word, not as it is used in our great ochlocracy in reference to the periodic popularity-contests between Tweedledum and Tweedledee which many Americans find as exciting as baseball games.

Cont’d in Section 3

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s