Yockey on Culture and Race – Part 10


Continuing with Imperium, in the section titled “Race, People, Nation, State”, page 274:

The materialistic race-thinking of the 19th century had particularly heavy consequences for Europe when it was coupled with one of the early 20th century movements of Resurgence of Authority.

Any excrescence of theoretical equipment on a political movement is a luxury, and the Europe of 1933-2000 can afford none such. Europe has paid dearly for this Romantic concern with old-fashioned racial theories, and they must be destroyed.

Yockey blamed “materialistic race-thinking” for the “heavy consequences” of the war. Just as the jews did at the time. And since the war their narrative has become the dominant narrative: nationalists and racists are the cause of war and suffering, not the jews, who paint themselves as powerless “scapegoats” but who are in fact powerful enough to shift and assign blame to others.

Race has two meanings, which will be taken in order, and then their relative importance in an Age of Absolute Politics will be shown. The first meaning is an objective one, the second subjective.

The succession of human generations, related by blood, have the clear tendency to remain fixed in a landscape. Nomadic tribes wander within larger, but equally definite, bounds. Within this landscape the forms of plant and animal life have local characteristics, different from transplantations of the same strains and stocks in other landscapes.

The anthropological studies of the 19th centuries uncovered a mathematically presentable fact which affords a good starting-point to show the influence of the soil. It was discovered that for any given inhabited area of the world there was an average


cephalic index of the population. More important, it was learned, through measurements on immigrants to America from every part of Europe, and then on their children born in America, that this cephalic index adheres to the soil, and immediately makes itself manifest in the new generation. Thus long-headed Jews from Sicily, and short-headed ones from Germany, produced offspring with the same average head measurement, the specifically American one. Bodily size and span of growth were two other characteristics in which all types whatever in America, Indians, Negroes, white men, were found to have the same average, regardless of average size and growth-span of the countries or stocks from which they came.

What Yockey accepted and presented as “mathematically presentable fact” was in fact pseudo-scientific fraud perpetrated by an anti-”racist” jew. See Race and Fraud: Franz Boas.

From these and other facts, both comparatively new and of ancient observation, it is apparent that the landscape exerts an influence on the human stocks within its bounds as well as on the plant and animal life. The technic of this influence is beyond our ken. The source of it we do know.

Beyond Yockey’s ken. As we saw in Part 4 and Part 5, Yockey refused to accept the idea that “the landscape exerts an influence on the human stocks” when it was described as Darwinism, the technic being gradual adaptation via natural selection. But oddly enough here we see he accepted and promoted the false claims Boasians made that physical attributes can change “immediately”.

Page 276:

Race in a man is the plane of his being which stands in relationship to plant and animal life, and beyond them, to the great macrocosmic rhythms. It is, so to speak, the part of Man that is generalized into, absorbed into the All, rather than his soul, which defines his species, and sets him off from all other forms of existence.

Life manifests itself in the four forms: Plant, Animal, Man, High Culture. Distinct though each is, yet it is related to all the others. The animals, subject as they are to the soil, retain thus in their being a plane of plantlike existence. Race is the expression of the plant-like and also of the animal-like in Man. The High Culture, by being fixed for its duration to a landscape, retains also a connection with the plant world, no matter how defiant and free-moving are its proud creations. Its high politics and great wars are an expression of the animal and human in its nature.

As discussed in Part 6, we can see evolution dividing the living from the non-living, with consciousness being what separates humans from animals. Furthermore, that the highest form of conscious is self-awareness, a collective consciousness and teleological concern.

Some of the totality of human characteristics are soil-determined, others are stock-determined. Pigmentation is one of the latter, and survives transplantation to other areas. It is not possible to list all of even the physical characteristics according to such a scheme, for the data has not been gathered. But even so, it would not matter to our purpose, for the most important element also in the objective meaning of race is the spiritual.

No. Biology is most important. Both physical and mental characteristics are heritable. Beyond that, you can change your memes, but you cannot change your genes.

On page 277 Yockey touches on the a common theme of anti-”racism”, the species/categorization problem. See Race and Genetics – Part 2.

To what race does a man belong? We know at first glance, but exactly what sign tells us this cannot be materially explained. It is accessible only to the feelings, the instincts, and does not yield itself to the scale and balance of physical science.

We have seen that race is connected with landscape and with stock. Its outer manifestation is a certain, typical expression, a play of features, a cast of countenance. There are no rigid physical indicia of this expression, but this does not affect its existence, but solely the method of understanding it. Within wide limits, a primitive population in a landscape has a similar look. But closer scrutiny will be able to find local refinements, and these again will branch down into tribes, clans, families, and finally individuals. Race, in the objective sense, is the spirituo-biological community of a group.

Thus races cannot be classified, other than arbitrarily. The materialistic 19th century produced several classifications of this arbitrary kind. The only characteristics used were, of course, purely material ones. Thus, skull-form, was the basis of one, hair and speech type of another, nose-shape and pigmentation of another. This was at best mere group anatomy, but did not approach race.

This “mere group anatomy” is a strawman.

Anatomical attributes are merely the most visible and tangible, thus most amenable to measurement and statistical analysis. Race scientists were also well aware that personality traits differed by race. See, for example, Race and Genetics – Part 4 and Part 5.

Yockey demonstrated his own awareness of the many more or less subtle physical attributes of race:

We have seen that race, objectively used, describes a relationship between a population and a landscape, and is essentially an expression of cosmic beat. Its prime visible manifestation is the look, but this invisible reality expresses itself in other ways. To the Chinese, for instance, smell is a hall-mark of race. Certainly audible things, speech, song, laughter, also have racial significance. Susceptibility to disease is another racially- differentiated phenomenon. The Japanese, Americans, and Negroes have three different degrees of resistance to tuberculosis. American medical statistics show that Jews have more nervous disease, more diabetes, and less tuberculosis than the Americans, and that in fact the incidence of any one disease shows a different figure for the Jews. Gesture, gait, dress, are not without racial significance.

But the face is the great visible sign of race. We do not


know what it is that conveys race in the physiognomy, and attempts to reach it by statistics and measurements must fail. This fact has caused Liberals and other materialists to deny that race exists. This incredible doctrine came from America, which is veritably a large-scale racial laboratory. This doctrine really only amounts to a confession of total inability of Rationalism and scientific method to understand Race or subject it to order of the type of the physical sciences, and this inability was known before by those who have clung to facts and resisted anti-factual theories.

But he was very wrong about race denial. It came from jews like Franz Boas and Ashley Montagu, and their useful idiot goyim. Not “America”. It was the fraudulent pseudo-science of jews which politicized and ultimately derailed true race science – the use of rationalism and scientific method to understand race.

Though Yockey saw the anti-”racial” degeneracy of the “Hollywood type”, he failed once again to note its jewish origins:

This instinct for racial beauty, needless to say, has no connection with the decadent erotic-cults of the Hollywood type. Such ideals are purely individual-intellectual,


and have no connection with Race. Race, being an expression of the cosmic, is informed throughout with the urge to continuity, and a racially ideal woman is always thought of, quite unconsciously, as the potential mother of strong sons. The racially ideal man is the master who will enrich the life of the woman who secures him as the father of her children. The degenerate eroticism of the Hollywood type is anti-racial: its root-idea is not Life- continuity, but pleasure, with the woman as the object of pleasure, and the man as the slave of this object.

Here’s how he related his notion of spiritual race to the jews:

This brings us to the most important phase of the objective meaning of Race in this age: History narrows or widens the limits of race-determinacy. The way this is done is through the spiritual element in Race. Thus a group with spiritual and historical community tends to acquire also a racial aspect. The community of which its higher nature partakes is transmitted downward to the lower, cosmic part of the human nature. Thus in Western history the early nobility tended to constitute itself


as a race to complement its unity on the spiritual side. The extent to which this proceeded is still apparent wherever historical continuity of the early nobility has been maintained to the present day. An important example of this is the creation of the Jewish race that we now know in the millennium of ghetto-existence in Europe. Leaving to one side for the moment the different world-outlook and culture of the Jew, this sharing by a group, whatever the basis of its original formation as such, of a common fate for centuries will hammer it into a race as well as a spiritual-historical unit.

Race influences History by supplying its material, its treasures of blood, honor, and strong instincts. History in turn influences Race by giving to units of high history a racial stamp as well as their spiritual one.

Revilo Oliver was referring to this passage when he wrote:

When Yockey concluded that the Jewish “race” (in his non-biological sense of the word) was formed by the ghettoes of Mediaeval Europe, he probably did not know that the historical record extends over twenty-five centuries. There is no reason to suppose that the Jews who migrated to the Mediaeval cities and established their ghettoes aroused more resentment among the Christian populations than the Jews who settled on an island in the Nile near the First Cataract aroused among the native Egyptian population in the fifth century B.C.

To be fair, Yockey did seem to understand that the jews originated outside of Europe and long before the middle ages. On page 169 of Imperium he wrote:

The most tragic example of Culture-parasitism for the West has been the presence of a part of a nation from the Arabian Culture scattered through the entire body of the West. We have already seen the entirely different content of the nation-idea in that other Culture — nations there were State, Church, and People all in one. The idea of a territorial home was unknown. Home was wherever the believers were. Belonger and believer were interchangeable ideas. This Culture had attained to its Late Civilization phase while our Gothic West was barely emerging from the primitive.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+

12 thoughts on “Yockey on Culture and Race – Part 10”

  1. You said on this show that “you can’t change your genes (re biological race) except through miscegenation or failure to reproduce.” I can’t for the life of me see how failure to reproduce changes genes, either your own or your group’s. Actually, I believe “my genes” carry forward in my sister’s and brother’s children, as they are all the same genes just organized differently. And this was remarked upon by them, especially in the case of my sister’s daughter.

    I’m quite sure the only way to damage (change) your genetic inheritance is to breed with someone of a different race, or even, in some cases, ethnic group. Of course, if you had some children within your race and then another (or two) outside your race, you would still have racially sound offspring of your own.

    This was an interesting podcast.

  2. Evolution in Populations:

    Evolution – defined as a change in allele frequencies – cannot happen to an individual. Populations, however, can and often do experience changing allele frequencies from one generation to the next, because individuals with certain alleles have reproduced or failed to reproduce.

  3. increase the number of alleles in the population increases the variation in the output population.

    geneticists can trace how many shared genes there are in various groups and point out exclusive alleles to a group in the population. But the amount of genetic contamination and genetic drift limit the amount of influence on the mental characteristics. Ontology must play a role in self determination.

    Is a genetic Jew restricted to “being” only a jew?

  4. Okay, but it sounded as if you were speaking of individuals, not populations, when you said
    “The fact is you can change your ideas, you can change your memes in your head, you can change your spirit, but you can’t change your genes … except by miscegenation or failure to reproduce.”

    Seems the key missing words from the definition are: “individuals with certain alleles”.

  5. The key to understanding evolution (and anything I have to say about it) is to see beyond yourself.

  6. Ontology must play a role in self determination.

    Racial (broadly speaking from clan to continental race) identity is genes plus memes, with the one influencing the other. If the members born into a “population” (the current academic euphemism for racial group) X don’t view or understand or value themselves as members of X and either breed with non-Xs or don’t breed at all, then group X will eventually disappear.

    Is a genetic Jew restricted to “being” only a jew?

    See Pew Polls Jews. The jews are famously deceptive (and somewhat in disagreement) on this point, but see being born to a jew as fundamental, both necessary and sufficient, for being a jew. The boundary cases of half-jews and wannabe jews bear this out.

    Jews are different from other racial groups in that limited breeding outside their racial group has historically served the interests of the core group. Those who marry out (Esther is one infamous example) and the products of their miscegenation tend to retain loyalty to and work to promote the interests of jewry, while at the same time jewry tends to push them away.

    Revilo Oliver cited a jew on this point:

    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.”

    This mentality goes hand-in-hand with the parasitic strategy jews have used for millenia to infiltrate, manipulate and exploit a series of hosts. To have any hope of ending the manipulation and exploitation a host needs to stop the infiltration, which of necessity means excluding jews (and mischlings) on a genetic as well as social level.

  7. Interesting. Jews pursuing race science, citing DNA as evidence, corroborate Yockey’s recounting of ashkenazi jewish origins in medieval Europe, as well as their genetic ties to the rest of jewry with origins outside Europe, as Oliver noted.

    Ashkenazi Jews descend from 350 people, study finds | The Times of Israel:

    “Our study is the first full DNA sequence dataset available for Ashkenazi Jewish genomes,” said Itzik Pe’er, an Israeli computer scientist at Columbia University, who led the study. “With this comprehensive catalog of mutations present in the Ashkenazi Jewish population, we will be able to more effectively map disease genes onto the genome and thus gain a better understanding of common disorders. We see this study serving as a vehicle for personalized medicine and a model for researchers working with other populations.”

    Ashkenazi Jews are known to have origins in the Levant, which Israel is smack dab in the middle of. But exactly who “European” Ashkenazi Jews are has long been debated. An analysis of the gene database shows that the original Ashkenazi Jews were about half European and half Middle Eastern. They lived in the medieval era, about 600 to 800 years ago, according to the analysis – and numbered just 350 or so people.

    That catalog of mutations is precisely what is needed to screen for genetic jewishness.

  8. ” (and somewhat in disagreement) ”

    Which makes sense. There are those that are purists – what it requires for you to be considered a jew. Full-fledged, certified and saved at the end of times versus “Dr. Alfred Nossig’s” who’s ideology Im guessing can be looked at in several ways.

    Should Jews intermarry extensively thereby contaminating every part of human stock they can argue the universalist mantra. The other side is they can then protect the stock (never forget never again) and still “argue” the hierarchy of jewishness within the stock. (you may think your a jew, but, sorry, you really arent).

    Jews are openly pursuing race science because they are no longer afraid (to draw attention to themselves).

    take that however you want. time will tell if its good for jews.

  9. Should Jews intermarry extensively thereby contaminating every part of human stock they can argue the universalist mantra. The other side is they can then protect the stock (never forget never again) and still “argue” the hierarchy of jewishness within the stock. (you may think your a jew, but, sorry, you really arent).

    This is a good summary of the dynamic.

    It’s a multi-layered parasitic organism. The core maintains genetic purity and a high birth rate with a literally religious zeal, continuously replenishing less zealous, more assimilative layers which serve the core – as apologists, as lubricant, as “revolutionaries” – like an enzymatic meat tenderizer. The genes and memes flow out, and the exploited resources flow in.

  10. Race, according to Yockey, is an expression of the *cosmic* above the biological …

    And yet, the lower, *cosmic* part of the human nature is just a downward transmitted element of universal human nature, again, according to Yockey.

    He doesn’t even take himself seriously. So, why did Oliver?

    That’s not a trivial question – the motivating impulses that sought to corral Oliver initially in the Bircher wide-eyed-conspindustry circles, then in the Carto narrow-eyed-conspindustry circles, may well be expected to be still active.

    I have nothing but respect for Revilo Oliver. The middle-man publisher and positionist academic who together are trying to re-direct nationalists to empty Yockey, not so much.

  11. This may seem a bit out of line with the topic but how did you find out about charles murray and his extreme philosemtism.I looked him up online and this guy is a complete nutcase who pretty much wants his own people replaced by non whites.He also talks about jews 24 7 and has traveled to isreal more than once.What do you think made him go over and side with jews?

Comments are closed.