Yockey on Culture and Race – Part 9


Recalling Yockey’s observation, previously discussed in Part 4:

The proud Civilization which in 1900 was master of 18/2Oths of the earth’s surface, arrived at the point in 1945, after the suicidal Second World War, where it controlled no part whatever of the earth.

In Yockey’s view this “crisis of the Western Civilization” was caused by the conflict between “the 19th century outlook” and “the 20th century outlook”.

As I have tried to point out throughout this series focused on Yockey, the real cause of the crisis has been the jews, who all along have been perfectly conscious of their own separate identity and interests as a people, not as some amorphous Capitalized Idea. Though jews had possessed considerable political power at various times and places previously, their struggle to take direct control over “the Western civilization” in its entirety became overt during the 19th century. Until the mid 20th century their ambition was overtly resisted. Since then jewish rule has not been challenged or even seriously questioned. It is taboo to even speak of it.

War Looms – RPO on FPY is an addendum to this examination of Yockey. I’d like to reiterate and call attention to a few of the points Revilo Oliver made:

… 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.

… If we look for this rational view of the world in other civilizations, we find no trace of it

This characteristic rationalism is what Yockey actually misidentified as the problem.

Oliver on Yockey and Spengler’s misunderstanding of race:

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 than 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.

In sum, the argument that great men are great because they are driven by irrational instincts, which are heritable, is an argument for importance of biological race.

On Spengler’s total misunderstanding and Yockey’s shallow understanding of the jews:

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 [WWII, Nuremberg trials], 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 touched on an example of Yockey’s blindness to jewish influence in the 19th century the last time, in Part 8:

From Cromwell to Joseph Chamberlain — the beginning and the end of that high political tradition which built the great British Empire, which at its highest point exerted its control over 17/20th of the surface of this earth — England was the example of the possibility of tradition in politics as well as in philosophy, music, and the arts of form.

A pair of articles by Andrew Joyce outlines the increasing influence jews had over this empire. Free to Cheat: “Jewish Emancipation” and the Anglo-Jewish Cousinhood, Part 1:

We should first bring the Anglo-Jewish elite, referred to by Macaulay, into sharper focus. From the early 19th century until the First World War, English Jewry was ruled by a tightly connected oligarchy. Daniel Gutwein states that this Anglo-Jewish elite comprised some twenty inter-related Ashkenazi and Sephardic families including the houses of Goldsmith, Montagu, Nathan, Cohen, Isaacs, Abrahams, Samuel, and Montefiore.[14] At its head “stood the House of Rothschild.”[15] This network of families had an “exceptionally high degree of consanguinity,” leading to it being termed “The Cousinhood,” and among them “conversion and intermarriage [with non-Jews] was rare.”[16]

By the mid-1830s, English Jews led by the Cousinhood began to press for the removal of Christian oaths in Parliament and this for their ability to enter the legislature.

In 1858 a “damp jew”, Benjamin Disraeli, became leader of the House of Commons and removed its “Christian oath” restriction. By 1874 Disraeli was prime minister.

Free to Cheat: “Jewish Emancipation” and the Anglo-Jewish Cousinhood, Part 2:

By 1899, Britain found itself at war with the Boers of the Transvaal over the vague cause of securing political rights for foreign gold miners.[41] Because of the obvious shared ethnic heritage of the mine owners and the diplomats who trod the path to war, “the view that the war was a Jewish war was commonplace among its opponents.”[42]

This opinion was reinforced by the fact that one of the conflict’s earliest supporters was J.H. Hertz — Chief Rabbi in South Africa. Hertz would later be rewarded for beating the war drum with an appointment to no less a position than “Chief Rabbi of the British Empire.”[43] In February 1900, Members of Parliament were openly acknowledging the Jewish complexion of the hostilities, with John Burns emphatically declaring before a full House of Commons that “Wherever we examine, there is a financial Jew operating, directing and inspiring the agonies that have led to this war…the British army which used to be used for all good causes…has become the janissary of the Jews”[44] — a comment that rings true today as a description of the American armed forces as a tool of Israel and its powerful American lobby in the war in Iraq and the looming war with Iran.

The same year, the Trades Union Congress issued a statement that the war was being fought to “secure the gold fields of South Africa for cosmopolitan Jews who have no patriotism and no country.”

Here we see the flaw in Yockey’s historiography. The empire Yockey saw as an exemplar of “the Western Civilization” was actually a political organism which danced to the tune of a judaized elite. As Yockey described:

The Law of Sovereignty is the inner necessity of organic existence which places the decision in every important juncture with the organism, as opposed to allowing any group within to make the decision.

Returning to Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf (Murphy translation), Volume I – A Retrospect, Chapter 11: Nation and Race, page 240:

All the great civilizations of the past became decadent because the originally creative race died out, as a result of contamination of the blood.

The most profound cause of such a decline is to be found in the fact that the people ignored the principle that all culture depends on men, and not the reverse. In other words, in order to preserve a certain culture, the type of manhood that creates such a culture must be preserved. But such a preservation goes hand-in-hand with the inexorable law that it is the strongest and the best who must triumph and that they have the right to endure.

He who would live must fight. He who does not wish to fight in this world, where permanent struggle is the law of life, has not the right to exist.

Hitler saw culture as an expression of a people. The inverse, which Hitler identified as the most profound cause of decline for a culture/civilization, is the belief Yockey espoused.

More from Hitler on culture and race:

It would be futile to attempt to discuss the question as to what race or races were the original standard-bearers of human culture and were thereby the real founders of all that we understand by the word humanity. It is much simpler to deal with this question in so far as it relates to the present time. Here the answer is simple and clear. Every manifestation of human culture, every product of art, science and technical skill, which we see before our eyes to-day, is almost exclusively the product of the Aryan creative power. This very fact fully justifies the conclusion that it was the Aryan alone who founded a superior type of humanity; therefore he represents the architype of what we understand by the term: MAN. He is the Prometheus of mankind, from whose shining brow the divine spark of genius has at all times flashed forth, always kindling anew that fire which, in the form of knowledge, illuminated the dark night by drawing aside the veil of mystery and thus showing man how to rise and become master over all the other beings on the earth. Should he be forced to disappear, a profound darkness will descend on the earth; within a few thousand years human culture will vanish and the world will become a desert.

If we divide mankind into three categories–founders of culture, bearers of culture, and destroyers of culture–the Aryan alone can be considered as representing the first category. It was he who laid the groundwork and erected the walls of every great structure in human culture. Only the shape and colour of such structures are to be attributed to the individual characteristics of the various nations. It is the Aryan who has furnished the great building-stones and plans for the edifices of all human progress; only the way in which these plans have been executed is to be attributed to the qualities of each individual race.

Note the contrast with Yockey. Hitler clearly saw people, the Aryans, as founders and creators of culture, not as mere bearers of it. In the subsequent paragraphs he explains his understanding of how the Aryans conquered and subjugated other peoples, eventually mixed with them, and thus disappeared – true to the consensus on European racial history which had taken shape since at least the middle of the 19th century.

Returning to Imperium, from the section Yockey titled “Race, People, Nation, State”, page 273:

The 19th century concepts of race, people, nation, and State are exclusively of Rationalistic-Romantic provenance. They are the result of imposing a thought method adapted to material problems on to living things, and thus they are materialistic. Materialistic means shallow as applied to living things, for with all Life, the spirit is primary, and the material is the mere vehicle of spiritual expression. Since these 19th century concepts were rationalistic, they were basically unfactual, for Life is irrational, unamenable to inorganic logic and systematization. The Age upon which we are entering, and of which this is a formulation, is an Age of Politics, and hence an age of facts.

The broader subject is the adaptation, health and pathology of High Cultures. Their relationship to every type of human grouping is a prerequisite to examining the last problems of Cultural Vitalism. The nature of these groupings will therefore be looked at without preconceptions, with a view to reaching their deepest meanings, origin, life, and inter-connections.

Instead of confronting the facts about jews and race – that jews are racially distinct, possess their own identity and pursue their own agenda, have a long-established pattern of infiltrating, manipulating and exploiting hosts – Yockey denied these facts and instead imagined that the problem was Materialism and Rationalism (driven by unexplained forces toward unexplained ends for unexplained reasons).

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+