Tag Archives: adolf hitler

This Fictitious Conflict

zionism_is_code_for_death_by_jewing

Left-posing jew Weiss writes, Charlottesville is moment of truth for empowered U.S. Zionists (who name their children after Israeli generals):

For a long time, liberalism and Zionism have gotten along fine in America– just look at the Democratic Party and its love for Israel. But Charlottesville represents a crisis for liberal Zionists. When they condemn white nationalism in the U.S. and celebrate Jewish nationalism in Israel, the contradiction is obvious to all.

Just consider three prominent voices. Wolf Blitzer of CNN, the liberal Zionist group J Street, and blogger and Democratic Party thinker Josh Marshall.

Weiss cites three contemporary jew voices. Below I’ll cite a prominent opposing voice from the past.

The extent of the contradiction is worse than Weiss admits. The jews have an ethnostate, a state explicitly by for and of jews, whereas Whites have none. Not one. Even outside their explicit ethnostate the jews have laws specifically protecting themselves and their ethnostate from criticism. Jews claim that jews are White, that Whites have privilege and thus deserve to be oppressed, and that jews are oppressed by Whites and thus deserve their privilege. When Whites object even indirectly to any aspect of this jewing the jews swarm forth as a tribe and screech louder for even more special funding and protection from their ostensibly liberal host state.

So-called liberals and their liberal democratic states aren’t advertised as elevating one group above others. Quite the contrary. Yet they openly elevate the jews above all others, and especially above Whites. That’s the big contradiction. Zionists do not merely support a state for jews, they oppose any state for Whites. They regard Whites and jews as political opposites. That’s not a contradiction, it’s the parasite having its cake and eating its host too. Liberalism has always served the jews, providing the means by which any and all forms of jewing have been simultaneously advanced and defended.

Weiss continues:

Charlottesville makes this conversation urgent because the hypocrisy of the Democratic leadership hurts resistance to intolerance. You can’t be righteously anti-nationalist in the U.S. and evangelists for Jewish nationalism over there.

This is not just good liberal philosophy. It’s the best policy to fight anti-Semitism. Israel’s status as a human-rights abuser is now its global reputation; and Jews and Jewish organizations who blindly defend it are hurting the reputation of Jews.

It is behind the mask of liberalism that academia, corporations, and the mainstream media have issued a constant stream of increasingly hostile rhetoric psychopathologizing and demonizing Whites. Whites who collaborate are rewarded, even if only temporarily. Whites who resist, even if only rhetorically, are punished. And behind that same liberal mask the same powerful institutions actively denounce and suppress any criticism of jews.

The snarling illiberal reality of this anti-White/pro-jew regime is deliberately concealed behind its smiley weaponized buzzterms. The jews cry “tolerance”, “social justice”, “diversity”, and “equity” as they strike “nazis”, by which they mean Whites, then screech “anti-semitism” when they imagine some ricochet might possibly hit the jews.

Weiss is an apologist for his tribe posing as a critic. He postures as a liberal but frets specifically about the best interests of jews. He minimizes the harm jewing causes Whites. He’s concerned about the potential harm any backlash might cause jews.

Yair Rosenberg provides a more overt example of jew hostility toward Whites. Unlike Weiss, Rosenberg makes no pretense that he’s a liberal and offers no apologies for being obsessed with whatever is best for the jews, in or out of their jew state. Unlike Weiss, Rosenberg’s toxic anti-White opinions are shamelessly amplified by the corporate mainstream jewsmedia.

Rosenberg recently jewsplained Why There’s No Such Thing as White Zionism, directly addressing the anti-White/pro-jew cake-eating Weiss misidentifies. Rosenberg describes the problem as sneaky White nationalists stupidly trying to use liberal-zionist double-talk in the same way jews have. Smirking Rosenberg admits that the argument is senseless, because jews are oppressed and Whites are oppressors, i.e. because jews aren’t White.

Writing nearly a century ago Adolf Hitler discussed this same apparent contradiction and described how he came to understand that jews aren’t Germans, how this fictitious conflict between liberalism and zionism brought about this realization:

It was not until I was fourteen or fifteen years old that I frequently ran up against the word ‘Jew’, partly in connection with political controversies. These references aroused a slight aversion in me, and I could not avoid an uncomfortable feeling which always came over me when I had to listen to religious disputes. But at that time I had no other feelings about the Jewish question.

There were very few Jews in Linz. In the course of centuries the Jews who lived there had become Europeanized in external appearance and were so much like other human beings that I even looked upon them as Germans. The reason why I did not then perceive the absurdity of such an illusion was that the only external mark which I recognized as distinguishing them from us was the practice of their strange religion. As I thought that they were persecuted on account of their Faith my aversion to hearing remarks against them grew almost into a feeling of abhorrence. I did not in the least suspect that there could be such a thing as a systematic anti-Semitism.

Then I came to Vienna.

Once, when passing through the inner City, I suddenly encountered a phenomenon in a long caftan and wearing black side-locks. My first thought was: Is this a Jew? They certainly did not have this appearance in Linz. I watched the man stealthily and cautiously; but the longer I gazed at the strange countenance and examined it feature by feature, the more the question shaped itself in my brain: Is this a German?

As was always my habit with such experiences, I turned to books for help in removing my doubts. For the first time in my life I bought myself some anti-Semitic pamphlets for a few pence. But unfortunately they all began with the assumption that in principle the reader had at least a certain degree of information on the Jewish question or was even familiar with it. Moreover, the tone of most of these pamphlets was such that I became doubtful again, because the statements made were partly superficial and the proofs extraordinarily unscientific. For weeks, and indeed for months, I returned to my old way of thinking. The subject appeared so enormous and the accusations were so far-reaching that I was afraid of dealing with it unjustly and so I became again anxious and uncertain.

Naturally I could no longer doubt that here there was not a question of Germans who happened to be of a different religion but rather that there was question of an entirely different people. For as soon as I began to investigate the matter and observe the Jews, then Vienna appeared to me in a different light. Wherever I now went I saw Jews, and the more I saw of them the more strikingly and clearly they stood out as a different people from the other citizens. Especially the Inner City and the district northwards from the Danube Canal swarmed with a people who, even in outer appearance, bore no similarity to the Germans.

But any indecision which I may still have felt about that point was finally removed by the activities of a certain section of the Jews themselves. A great movement, called Zionism, arose among them. Its aim was to assert the national character of Judaism, and the movement was strongly represented in Vienna.

To outward appearances it seemed as if only one group of Jews championed this movement, while the great majority disapproved of it, or even repudiated it. But an investigation of the situation showed that those outward appearances were purposely misleading. These outward appearances emerged from a mist of theories which had been produced for reasons of expediency, if not for purposes of downright deception. For that part of Jewry which was styled Liberal did not disown the Zionists as if they were not members of their race but rather as brother Jews who publicly professed their faith in an unpractical way, so as to create a danger for Jewry itself.

Thus there was no real rift in their internal solidarity.

This fictitious conflict between the Zionists and the Liberal Jews soon disgusted me; for it was false through and through and in direct contradiction to the moral dignity and immaculate character on which that race had always prided itself.

Yes. Race and morality are key. Liberalism and zionism are simply code for death by jewing. They have mutated somewhat yet remain two faces of the same jew-first moral fraud. Both incite non-jews into fighting “racism” (Whites being White) and “anti-semitism” (anything that interferes with jews jewing). Both are championed by jews for the benefit of jews.

Hitler described accurately not only what was happening Germany in his time, but also forsaw the jew-dominated future we’re now living:

The Jewish domination in the State seems now so fully assured that not only can he now afford to call himself a Jew once again, but he even acknowledges freely and openly what his ideas are on racial and political questions. A section of the Jews avows itself quite openly as an alien people, but even here there is another falsehood. When the Zionists try to make the rest of the world believe that the new national consciousness of the Jews will be satisfied by the establishment of a Jewish State in Palestine, the Jews thereby adopt another means to dupe the simple-minded Gentile. They have not the slightest intention of building up a Jewish State in Palestine so as to live in it. What they really are aiming at is to establish a central organization for their international swindling and cheating. As a sovereign State, this cannot be controlled by any of the other States. Therefore it can serve as a refuge for swindlers who have been found out and at the same time a high-school for the training of other swindlers.

As a sign of their growing presumption and sense of security, a certain section of them openly and impudently proclaim their Jewish nationality while another section hypocritically pretend that they are German, French or English as the case may be. Their blatant behaviour in their relations with other people shows how clearly they envisage their day of triumph in the near future.

The jew war on Whites is waged stealthily under the fiction that jews are White. It started and will end with the realization that they aren’t.

Yockey on Culture and Race – Part 9

crypto_colossus

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).

Yockey on Culture and Race – Part 8

oliver_cromwell_adolf_hitler

Concerning European heroes and the nature of their genius.

Imperium, from the section Yockey titled “Tradition and Genius”, page 262:

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. How many men of political genius appeared in the Premiership during these centuries? Only the two Pitts. Nevertheless, England emerged from all the general wars of those centuries with increased power — Thirty Years War, 1618-1648, Spanish Succession War, 1702-1713, Austrian Succession Wars 1741-1763, Napoleonic Wars, 1800-1815, Wars of German Unification, 1863-1871. Only one serious blunder was made during these centuries, the loss of America, 1775-1783. The essence of this tradition was nothing other than applying only political thinking

263

to politics. Cromwell the theologian departed from this only occasionally, and more in words and expressions of sympathy than in actions. His successors in the tradition of Empire-building were not burdened with his heavy theological equipment, which they transformed into cant, a word translatable into no other European language. The technic of cant was what enabled English diplomacy to score continued successes in the world of facts, i.e., the world of violence, of cunning, of sin, while maintaining before itself the attitude of selfless morality. To enrich the country by new possession was thus “bringing civilization” to “backward” races. And so on, through the whole gamut of political tactics.

Yockey’s description of cant combines senses 2a and 4:

1 : affected singsong or whining speech

2 a : the private language of the underworld

b obsolete : the phraseology peculiar to a religious class or sect

c : jargon 2

3 : a set or stock phrase

4 : the expression or repetition of conventional or trite opinions or sentiments; especially : the insincere use of pious words

Cant may not have an equivalent in any other European language, but what Yockey called “the technic of cant” does have an equivalent in Hebrew. Hasbara is variously explained as “explaining”, “public relations”, “diplomacy”, and “propaganda”. It is a relatively new word for one aspect of a long-standing apologetic mechanism which is perfectly characteristic of the jews.

In light of tikkun olam – the blank check jews give themselves to “repair the world” and be “a light unto the nations” – it’s no coincidence that jew-backed British politicians from Cromwell on built an empire based on the “selfless morality” of “bringing civilization” to “backward” races.

Oliver Cromwell, “Lord Protector” of Britain between 1653 and 1658:

Cromwell is one of the most controversial figures in the history of the British Isles, considered a regicidal dictator by historians such as David Hume,[3] a military dictator by Winston Churchill,[4] but a hero of liberty by Thomas Carlyle and Samuel Rawson Gardiner, and a class revolutionary by Leon Trotsky.[5] In a 2002 BBC poll in Britain, Cromwell was selected as one of the ten greatest Britons of all time.[6] However, his measures against Catholics in Scotland and Ireland have been characterised as genocidal or near-genocidal,[7] and in Ireland his record is harshly criticised.[8]

Yockey’s favorable regard for Cromwell may have to do with his favorable regard for Carlyle, the Scottish philosopher he credited with trying to explain Prussianism (proto-National Socialism) to the English.

Though Yockey was either unaware of or discounted the fact, Cromwell discredited himself by officially opening Britain to the jews, literally selling out his “political organism”, the Britons:

As Lord Protector, Cromwell was aware of the Jewish community’s involvement in the economics of the Netherlands, now England’s leading commercial rival. It was this—allied to Cromwell’s tolerance of the right to private worship of those who fell outside evangelical Puritanism—that led to his encouraging Jews to return to England in 1657, over 350 years after their banishment by Edward I, in the hope that they would help speed up the recovery of the country after the disruption of the Civil Wars.

Unofficial recolonization by the jews pre-dated Cromwell. Even sources sympathetic to the jews, such as Cromwell and the Jews and Cromwell and the ‘readmission’ of the Jews to England, 1656, provide more insight into the influence jews had, which Yockey mistakenly attributed purely to British political “genius”. Just one bit from that latter link:

Since before 1640 there had been established in London a small colony of Sephardic Jews, marranos or crypto-Jews, passing as Spanish merchants. The leader of the London group was Antonio Fernandez Carvajal whose history began with his leaving Portugal, possibly for the Canaries; trading interests brought him to London where he settled in the 1630s. By 1643 he had a position of importance, with a house and warehouse in Leadenhall Street; he traded with his own ships to the East and West Indies, Brazil, and other remote regions; his agents operated in all the mercantile centres of Europe.

See also The Murder of Mary Phagan – Part 6, where we see that by 1733, only seven or so decades after Cromwell, the colony of jews in London had grown into an international hub, moving jews and “crypto-jews” in and out of colonies elsewhere.

The “position of importance” enjoyed by jews and crypto-jews in the “British Empire” is not generally acknowleged as such, but it is not invisible either. Concerning Joseph Chamberlain:

He was best known as the leading imperialist of the day in Britain, first in the radical wing of the Liberal party then in the Liberal Unionist faction of the Conservative Party. He was the chief advocate and supervisor of the Second Boer War (1899–1902)

About the Second Boer War:

The complex origins of the war resulted from more than a century of conflict between the Boers and the British Empire, but of particular immediate importance was the question as to which white nation would control and benefit most from the very lucrative Witwatersrand gold mines.

History of the Jews in South Africa:

Jews played a prominent role in the development of the diamond and gold fields

There were Jews among the directors of the Dutch East India Company, which for 150 years administered the colony at the Cape of Good Hope.

I didn’t dig very deep into the Pitts, the father and son Yockey identified as the only political geniuses between Cromwell and Chamberlain. I suppose the oddest thing about Yockey’s favor for them is that they were exponents of the kind of national rivalry and pre-20th century thinking he so disdained.

William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham (the elder):

Pitt is best known as the wartime political leader of Britain in the Seven Years’ War, especially for his single-minded devotion to victory over France, a victory which ultimately solidified Britain’s dominance over world affairs. He is also known for his popular appeal, his opposition to corruption in government, his support for the colonial position in the run-up to the American War of Independence, his advocacy of British greatness, expansionism and colonialism, and his antagonism toward Britain’s chief enemies and rivals for colonial power, Spain and France.

He displayed a commanding manner, brilliant rhetoric, and sharp debating skills that cleverly utilized broad literary and historical knowledge.

William Pitt the Younger

The younger Pitt’s prime ministerial tenure, which came during the reign of George III, was dominated by major events in Europe, including the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars.

Historian Charles Petrie concludes that he was one of the greatest prime ministers “if on no other ground than that he enabled the country to pass from the old order to the new without any violent upheaval”

Returning to Imperium, page 266:

The crass stupidity of Rationalism and Materialism was nowhere more perfectly in evidence than in its attempt to make the word genius into an intelligence term. Naive “tests” were even devised to detect the presence of “genius,” which could be shown by a number. In the Age of Materialism, there was no scruple about weighing and numbering the faculties of the Soul. The fact is that intelligence is the functional opposite of Genius. Intelligence is dissection, genius is creation; one is analysis, the other is synthesis; the first is directed toward the Part, the second toward the Whole. They are related as terrestrial and astral, counting and imagining.

Another example of Yockey’s Grand Dichotomizing. There is more to intelligence than a single dimensional IQ can fairly represent, but its various aspects are correlated and not as exclusive as Yockey contends. In addition to the distinction Yockey notes between dissecting analysts and creative synthesists, there is a distinction between analogizers and memorizers, or mappers and packers. Most thinkers avail themselves of some combination of these traits, though the various mixes may be more or less common.

Page 268:

What precisely are the qualities of Genius in politics, which constitute its maestria [Spanish: mastery, skill] and its inner imperative? First, vision. It sees the possibilities of the Future, and its mind is thereby freed from the trammels which hinder the average man in his thinking. To the prosaic mind, everything which is, represents the end of all development, the Future is to be a mere extension of the Past. Second, spiritual purity: the ordinary man is an eclectic; he carries in his head hundreds of contradictory ideas

269

and beliefs. Not so the creative man in politics: he thinks along one line, and one line only. This gives to his enemies the opportunity of convincing many that he is mentally ill, and they have never failed to do so, from Alexander to the Hero we have seen. But political Genius and its enemies pass into two different categories of History. His name is written in bronze letters as the symbol, meaning, apotheosis, and incarnation of the Spirit of his Age; his enemies turn out on this high plane to have been merely the material with which he hewed his deeds. Third, intensity: the voice of Genius commands; it is harsh, intolerant. It demands and impels upward. Genius is inseparable from the presence of a rushing inner chaos, the prerequisite of formative work. Under a Frederick, or a Charles XII, men will overcome tactical odds of 5-to-l, strategical odds of 30-to-l. But not under Laudon, or the Archduke Charles, or a Grant. These latter need crushing superiority to make up for their inner lack.

Fourth, the sense of a Mission. This vision, purity, and intensity are all brought into an ethical focus: the things which he sees are stamped with Necessity, and he must actualize them. This accounts for the powerfully dramatic influence of a political Genius upon the facts of History. His forceful mission compels everyone to orient himself to it. Everyone is either with him or against him. He becomes the center of the world.

Lastly, an Imponderable. Genius is Life at its highest human potential, and all Life is uncanny, irrational, mysterious. There is something about Genius that makes men rise spiritually. It is the Something that gave Napoleon victory on almost every field, that sat like an eagle on the shoulder of Moltke, as he worked quietly at his task of shaping the form of the 20th and 21st centuries. It may be merely the personality accompanying these extraordinary gifts. It may be a transcendental emanation from the higher organism — it is unknowable, but it is there.

Yockey dedicated Imperium “To the hero of the Second World War”, Adolf Hitler. Though he and his National Socialists confronted the jews and thus flushed them out, his name is not yet written in bronze letters because they prevailed. Europe’s geniuses and heroes cannot be properly judged without accounting for the jews.

Writing in 1924, some 25 years before Yockey, Hitler expressed his own thoughts on culture and race. The contrast is interesting. Hitler comes across as more in tune with reality, more enamored of his people than abstractions. Mein Kampf (Murphy translation), Volume I – A Retrospect, Chapter 11: Nation and Race, page 240:

All that we admire in the world to-day, its science, its art, its technical developments and discoveries, are the products of the creative activities of a few peoples, and it may be true that their first beginnings must be attributed to one race. The maintenance of civilization is wholly dependent on such peoples. Should they perish, all that makes this earth beautiful will descend with them into the grave.

However great, for example, be the influence which the soil exerts on men, this influence will always vary according to the race in which it produces its effect. Dearth of soil may stimulate one race to the most strenuous efforts and highest achievement; while, for another race, the poverty of the soil may be the cause of misery and finally of undernourishment, with all its consequences. The internal characteristics of a people are always the causes which determine the nature of the effect that outer circumstances have on them. What reduces one race to starvation trains another race to harder work.

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

That last sentence is the thesis of Arthur de Gobineau’s The Inequality of Human Races, published in 1854.