Tag Archives: francis parker yockey

Yockey on Culture and Race – Part 7


The closer we look, the less superior humans are, Financial Times, 8 September 2014:

The more closely scientists look at other species, both extant and extinct, the less remarkable our own becomes. Nearly everything we once thought made us human, does not. This sobering message is reflected in Yuval Noah Harari’s bestseller Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind, which provocatively challenges the concept of human uniqueness. Homo sapiens is unique only in the literal sense that every other member of the genus Homo died out.

Yockey identified the force driving such “provocative” ideas as Rationalism. He was wrong. The driving force is jews. In fact, one of their most effective tactics has been to assert their own uniqueness while challenging everyone else’s.

We return now to where we started this series, in the section of Imperium titled Cultural Vitalism, page 248:

If two individuals, widely separated geographically, and in no contact with one another, develop similar inventions, similar philosophies, chose the same subject matter for drama or lyric — this is not “influence” nor “coincidence,” but a reflection of the development of the Culture to which both belong.

Yockey is compelled to make such silly assertions by his insistance on the primacy of spirit and culture. A mechanical, material connection – i.e. biology, shared heritage, DNA – provides a far better explanation.

Consider “emancipation”. Who invented this idea? More important, who promoted it and used it to emancipate the jews, the negroes, women, etc?

The nature of the unity of the Culture is purely spiritual in its origin. The material unity that follows is the unfolding of the precedent inner, spiritual unity. Life is the actualizing of the possible; the development of a High Culture is the unfolding, over the predetermined organic life-span, of the inner possibilities contained in the Culture-soul.

Yockey asserts beliefs, not facts. It is the material, the DNA, which provides the unity for which Yockey offered no explanation. Page 251:

The intensity of the impression of the Culture on individuals is proportional to their receptivity to spiritual impressions. The individual of small soul and limited horizon lives for himself because he understands nothing else. To such a man Western music is merely an alternate up and down, loud and soft, philosophy is mere words, history is a collection of fairy-tales, even the reality of which is not inwardly felt, politics is the selfishness of the great, military conscription a burden which his lack of moral courage forces him to accept. Thus even his individualism is a mere denial of anything higher, and not an affirming of his own soul. The extraordinary man is the one who puts something else before his own life and security.

Indeed, there is a qualitative difference between an individualist and someone who sees themselves as part of a larger whole. I might even describe the difference metaphorically as spirit or soul. But I can’t help wondering… How does it work? Where does it come from? Is it heritable?

Because Yockey regarded spirit and soul as primal, he did not ask such questions. Thus also his concern was for “the Western Culture” and “the Western civilization” rather than the European people, whom he subdivided into two main classes according to spirit: the masses and a much less numerous culture-bearing stratum. Page 253:

In earlier centuries, the common man did not attend the Cultural drama. It did not interest him, and the participants were not yet under the Rationalistic spell, the “counting-mania,” as Nietzsche called it.

Counting-mania, i. e. voting, the fraud of democracy.

In earlier centuries there was no suggestion anywhere that the masses of the population had a part to play. When this idea does triumph, it turns out that the only role these masses can play is the passive one of unwieldy building material for the articulate part of the population.

There is in all Cultures a spiritual level of the entire population called the Culture-bearing stratum. It is this articulation of Culture-populations alone which makes the expression of a High Culture possible. It is the technic of living, the habitus of the Culture. The Culture-bearing stratum is the custodian of the wealth of expression-forms of the Culture. To it belong all the creators in the domains of religion, philosophy, science, music, literature,


the arts of form, mathematics, politics, technics, and war, as well as the non-creators who fully understand and themselves experience the developments in this higher world, the appreciators.

So, within itself the Culture-bearing stratum is articulated into creators and appreciators. It is in general the latter who transmit the great creations downward, insofar as this is possible. This process serves to recruit the higher material, wherever it appears, into the Culture-bearing stratum. The process of replenishment is continually going on, for the Culture-bearing stratum is not hereditary in any strict sense. The Culture-bearing stratum is a purely spiritual level of the populace of the Culture. It has no economic, political, social, or other hallmark.

Yockey could have placed the creators in their own “culture-creating stratum”, but that would have been an acknowledgement that spirit and culture springs from the material. His preference for “culture-bearing” better fits his spirit-first premise. Page 255:

Within this stratum there is constant struggle between Tradition and Innovation. The strong, vital part naturally represents the new, forward development, affirming the next age. It is the function of Tradition to assure continuity.

Sure, in a healthy culture. As it stands now, decades after Yockey wrote, Tradition has lost. Whites are being discontinued. Innovation describes the endless new ways in which anything associated with Whites is deconstructed, denigrated, desecrated, defiled, destroyed.

Yockey again emphasizes the immaterial nature of his ideas, and their connection to the thesis of Imperium, “the Idea”. Page 256:

The Culture-bearing stratum, articulated into creators and appreciators, is invisible as such. It corresponds to no economic class, no social class, no nobility, no aristocracy, no occupation. Its members are not all public figures by any means. But by its existence, this stratum actualizes a High Culture on this earth. If a process had existed by which members of the stratum could be all selected, the extra-European forces would probably have exterminated it in the attempt to destroy the West. The attempt would not have succeeded, for this stratum is produced by the Culture, and after a long period of chaos — a generation or two, depending on circumstances — this Cultural organ would have been again present, including in its numbers descendants of the invaders, who would also succumb to the Idea.

Recall how Yockey previously described the Idea. On page 64:

First is the Idea — not an ideal which can be summed up in a catchword, or one which can be explained to an alien, but a living, breathing, wordless feeling, which already exists in all Westerners, articulate in a very few, inchoate in most. This Idea, in its wordless grandeur, its irresistible imperative, must be felt, and thus only men of the West can assimilate it. The alien will understand it as little as he has always understood Western creations and Western codes.

He summed it up on page 116 as:

the Idea of the Unity of the West against the nationalism of the 19th century

Returning to the nature of the culture-bearing stratum, on page 257:

The notion of mere prominence must be dissociated strongly from the idea of belonging to this stratum.

The notion of prominence is related to the idea of the Culture-bearing stratum in this way: every man who is prominent in any field, and who also has inner gifts, of vision, appreciation, or creativeness, naturally belongs to this stratum.

Page 258:

The Culture-bearing stratum has its highest importance now, rather than in previous centuries, because it is a relatively tinier minority.

The tension can be suggested in figures: there are not more than 250,000 souls in Europe who constitute by their potentialities, their imperative, their gifts, their existence, the Culture-bearing stratum of the West. Their geographical distribution has never been entirely uniform.

Yockey details the who, where and when of this nonuniform distribution, but provides no how or why. The purely spiritual requires no such explanation. It is by considering the material, and specifically the agency and activities of the Other, the parasite, the jews, that helps explain how and why Western civilization flourished and floundered at various times and places.

Yockey describes the stata below the creators and appreciators.

The articulation of the Culture has three aspects: the Idea itself, the transmitting stratum, those to whom it is transmitted.


The latter comprise the vast numbers of human beings who possess any refinement whatever, who maintain a certain standard of honor or morality, who take care of their property, who have self-respect and respect the rights of others, who aspire to improve themselves and their situation instead of pulling down those who have enriched their inner life and raised themselves in the world. They are the body of the Culture vis-a-vis the Culture-bearing stratum as its brain, and the Idea as its soul.

And the lowest:

But beneath all this is the stratum totally incapable of cultural attainment, even the most modest: the mob, canaille [rabble, riffraff, proletarian from Latin: canis (dog)], Pobel [pöbel: rabble, mob, riffraff], underworld, profanum vulgus [the common herd], the “common man” of the American cult. These preside at every Terror, listen wishfully to every Bolshevik agitator, secrete venom at the sight of any manifestation of Culture or superiority.

Page 260:

As soon as a creative man makes his resolve and proceeds with his work, somewhere else in a dark envious soul there rises a crooked determination to stop him, to smash the work. In his later years the Nihilist Tolstoy gave perfect expression to this basic fact with his formula that not even one stone should be on top of another. The slogan of the Bolshevik in 1918 was also illuminating: “Destroy Everything!” In our age this underworld is in the possession of the class-warriors, the rear-guard of Rationalism. It is thus working, from the larger political viewpoint, solely for the extra-European forces. Previous rebellions of this stratum were all doomed because of the unity of the Culture, the pristine vigor of the creative impulses, and the lack of external danger of such crushing proportions as exists in this age. Its history is not yet over with. Asia has use for this stratum, and plans for it.

I sought out an explanation of Yockey’s description of Tolstoy as a nihilist and found How Tolstoy Faced Down Nihilism (circa 1878):

At the age of fifty, Tolstoy achieved everything he desired from life. A famous novelist, happily married with six loving children, and the owner of a 16,500-acre estate, he should have been supremely happy.

Just before he turned fifty, Tolstoy experienced moments of perplexity and an arrest of life, when two questions began to recur oftener and oftener: What is it for? What does it lead to? At first, the questions seemed “stupid, simple, and childish,” but soon he became convinced they were the most important and profound of all life’s questions.

Unlike few of us, Tolstoy had fulfilled his every desire, and he had nothing left to wish for. He no longer could close his eyes to avoid seeing that nothing lie ahead for him but suffering and death — complete annihilation. He beheld what he believed was the fundamental truth of human existence — life is meaningless.

Life is ultimately meaningless from the point of view of an individualist, an egoist, someone absorbed in themselves and their limits, their insignificance, their mortality. This is not so for the tribalist, nationalist, racialist or even humanist – those who see something beyond and greater than themselves, something they are part of but which is less finite and potentially immortal.

Addendum: Coincidentally today is Leo Tolstoy’s 186th birthday and he is commemorated by a “Google doodle” as described by The Guardian in Leo Tolstoy: an epic Google doodle for novelist of ‘astonishing scope and vigour’. I saw no mention of his nihilism.

Yockey on Culture and Race – Part 6


More on Yockey’s critique of Darwinism, consciousness, evolution and life.

Yockey saw everything in terms of Grand Dichotomies, anthropomorphized forces utterly opposed. He saw Darwinism as an outgrowth of Rationalism, like Liberalism, and thus felt compelled to deconstruct Darwinism using sophmoric strawman arguments.

Imperium, page 70:

The easiest refutation is the palaeontological. Fossil deposits — found in various parts of the earth — must represent the possibilities generally. Yet they disclose


only stable specie-forms, and disclose no transitional types, which show a species “evolving” into something else. And then, in a new fossil hoard, a new species appears, in its definitive form, which remains stable. The species that we know today, and for past centuries, are all stable, and no case has ever been observed of a species “adapting” itself to change its anatomy or physiology, which “adaptation” then resulted in more “fitness” for the “struggle for existence,” and was passed on by heredity, with the result of a new species.

This is denial, not refutation. The palaeontological record is incomplete, full of holes, yet even a puzzle missing pieces can convey information.

Darwin’s theorizing was inspired by his observations of living “transitional types”, the beaks of Darwin’s finches. Science has uncovered copious evidence of speciation. For example, Population Genomics Reveal Recent Speciation and Rapid Evolutionary Adaptation in Polar Bears: Cell.

Calling Culture-man a “higher” animal still treats him as an animal. Culture-man is a different world spiritually from all animals, and is not to be understood by referring him to any artificial materialistic scheme.

Yockey rejected the reality that man is animal. What he identifies as spirit can be just as well understood as consciousness, awareness. Culture-man is conscious-animal. Culture springs from consciousness.

If this picture of the facts were correct, species ought to be fluid at the present time. They should be turning into one another. This is, of course, not so. There should actually be no species, but only a surging mass of individuals, engaged in a race to reach — man. But the “struggle,” again, is quite inconclusive. The “lower” forms, simpler — less fit? — have not died out, have not yielded to the principle of Darwinian evolution. They remain in the same form they have had for — as the Darwinians would say — millions of years. Why do they not “evolve” into something “higher”?

Yockey rejected speciation, the name and details of the theory were irrelevant. Thus the silly strawmen. Individual species appear stable, the whole is in tumult.

The utilitarian aspect of the picture is also quite subjective — i.e., English, capitalistic, parliamentarian — for the utility of an organ is relative to the use sought to be made of it.

The naive, tautological, doctrine of utility never asked “Utility for what?”

Utility for survival, of course. “Fitness”, in an evolutionary sense, is defined as objectively as possible, in terms of survival. Yockey, however, seemed determined not to see it this way.

The soul of the lion and his power go together. The hand of man and his brain go together. No one can say that the strength of the lion causes him to live the way he does, nor that the hand of man is responsible for his technical achievements. It is the soul in each case which is primary.

This primacy of the spiritual inverts the Darwinian materialism on the doctrine of utility.

Yockey asserted the “primacy of the spiritual”, placing his own mysticism over and above material reality. It’s far easier to assert the primacy of material reality, because whatever anyone has to say, it’s right there just waiting to be probed and tested – this is the rationalism we call science.

The whole grotesquerie of Darwinism, and of the materialism of the entire 19th century generally, is a product of one fundamental idea — an idea which happens also to be nonfactual to this century, even though it was a prime fact a century ago. This one idea was that Life is formed by the outer.

Evidently, Yockey also denied external agency.

And yet, in a purely factual sense, what is Life? Life is the actualizing of the possible. The possible turns into the actual in the midst of outer facts, which affect only the precise


way in which the possible becomes actual, but cannot touch the inner force which is expressing itself through, and, if necessary, in opposition to, the outer facts.

“Life is the actualizing of the possible” sounds Darwinian, e.g. adaptive radiation.

Life is the unfolding of a Soul, an individuality.

Darwinism, to Yockey, was of a kind with two jewish intellectual movements, Marxism and Freudianism.

Darwinism was the animalization of Culture-man by means of biology … Marxism, the animalization of man through economics

Page 88:

As Socialism [i.e. Spengler’s Prussianism, Aryanism, National Socialism] creates the form of the Future, Marxism slips into the Past with the other remnants of Materialism. The mission of Western man is not to become rich through class-war; it is to actualize his inner ethico-politico-Cultural imperative.

There is another view of life and evolution which embraces a rational, Darwinian understanding of reality, rather than rejecting it. In his July 2014 broadcast, William Pierce: Cosmotheism’s Hard Way, Kevin Strom quotes Don Kaiser’s Life is Evolution:

THE SOLE CHARACTERISTIC that ultimately distinguishes living from non-living matter is classical Darwinian evolution. Life is simply matter that evolves.

Evolution is the sole feature that differentiates living matter from non-living matter.

Life is evolution.

The two are inseparable. Given the fact that all life forms die, how do they persist through time and changing environments? Every environment harboring life forms must change, simply because of their existence, so evolution is the only way life forms can persist through time. Not only did Charles Darwin discover what makes life possible despite the fact that all life forms eventually die, he unwittingly discovered the sole feature that distinguishes living from non-living matter. Charles Darwin defined life.

Life is Evolution.

Strom notes:

To the Cosmotheist, Nature is God. And science, logic, observation, reason, and the deepest stirrings of our race-soul are the means of apprehending God … Mathematics, physics, and genetics are the real words of God.

Cosmotheism asserts that we are matter and energy become conscious — and, more than that, that we are the Universe become conscious, that we are Nature become conscious of itself and all that that implies. It further shows us that we have reached a radically new stage in the evolution of the Universe — as significant, perhaps, as the evolution of non-living matter into living beings — as significant as the first rise of consciousness itself – as significant as the faltering steps of the first amphibians on the surface of the Earth. This new stage has come only recently, when European man first grasped the concept of evolution, and discovered the principles of genetics and heredity. It is the stage of conscious evolution — of the ability of living beings to direct, and vastly accelerate, the future course of their own evolution.

To the extent jews have outcompeted Whites it is by being more conscious of themselves and their survival as a people. In contrast, and in large part due to the efforts of jews, Whites have been relatively unconscious. Thus we seek to awaken, to inform and educate ourselves and others. The study of previous attempts, like Yockey’s, is part of this process.

War Looms – RPO on FPY


This may be regarded as an addendum to my recent examination of Francis Parker Yockey. Revilo Pendelton Oliver’s critique of Yockey, and by extension Oswald Spengler and philosophers of history more generally, is far more erudite and articulate than anything I could possibly muster.

Both Yockey and Oliver dedicated themselves to analyzing and diagnosing European decline, marshalling an encyclopedic knowledge of European thought and history. Unlike Yockey, Oliver recognized the biological nature of race, thus he better understood the jews and did not discount their role in the problem.

Where Yockey concerned himself with “the Western Civilization”, Oliver identified more directly with his people, his race, the Aryans. Where Yockey anthropomorphized Rationalism and other amorphous concepts, as if they had a life and will of their own, Oliver saw more clearly the significance of heritable personality traits.

In my own humble opinion, the main oversight in Oliver’s analysis is in equating contemporary Whites exclusively with the Aryans, thus neglecting whatever contribution to our psyche and situation may derive from the Old Europeans the Aryans conquered and mixed with. Nevertheless, where Yockey’s observations are valuable, Oliver’s are priceless.

The following excerpts are from Oliver’s Enemy of Our Enemies: A Critique of Francis Parker Yockey’s The Enemy of Europe. It is lengthy but well worth reading. The portions below illustrate the points I’ve made above, or are otherwise relevant to related topics I’ve touched on previously.

WHEN 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

What is Europe? More to the point: Who is us? What to call ourselves?

(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.)

What are our personality traits? Note that the rationalism Yockey identified as part of the problem, Oliver identified as our dominant characteristic:

… 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.

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.

What’s wrong with the analysis of Spengler and Yockey?

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 regime 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.

See Race and Fraud: Franz Boas and the half dozen or so subsequent installments for more on the jewish hijacking of anthropology.

Relating Yockey’s minimization of biology to his desire for European unity:

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.

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.

More on race and the jews. Why the Nuremberg Laws were justified, but not strict enough – and how Toynbee, Spengler and even Yockey underestimated the jews:

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.

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 coordinated 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 Masters. 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.

On the tragic consequences of Christianity:

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.”

How “conversion” serves the jews:

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.)

On morality:

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.

More on Aryan traits and spirituality, eugenics and dysgenics:

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.

Memes can and do shape genes:

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.

Connecting “jewish penetration” to Christian/”liberal” guilt:

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.)

Contrasting Spengler and Yockey on jewish influence:

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.

Oliver fleshes out Yockey’s critique of the “18/20ths” “crisis” (see Yockey on Culture and Race – Part 3 and Part 4) and “social Darwinism” (see Part 5) by incorporating rather than overlooking the jews:

The technological achievements of our race, which made us masters of the entire globe until we succumbed to a fit of suicidal mania, did produce, around the beginning of the Nineteenth Century, “one world,” in the sense that events anywhere on the planet did affect in some way the interests of the great colonial empires of Britain, France, and Spain and might vitally concern some of the other Aryan nations, such as Germany and the United States. The peoples of other races were merely raw material; they occupied their territories on our sufferance, either because it would not be economically profitable for us to dispossess them or because the reciprocal jealousies of the colonial powers made a war between Aryan nations the price of annexing China or Morocco. And since our race seemed to be healthy, it was only reasonable to foresee that, with our continued progress and expansion, the lower races would, in the course of nature, become extinct. (3)

(3. Charles Darwin to W. Graham, 3 July 1881: “Remember what risk the nations of Europe ran, not so many centuries ago, of being overwhelmed by the Turks, and how ridiculous such an idea now is! The more civilised so-called Caucasian Races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilised races throughout the world.”)

Until 1914, no fact was more obvious than that the power-structure of the world, after the decline of Spain, depended on the three great nations of Europe, Britain, France, and Germany, with two outlying states, Russia and the United States, available as auxiliaries to one or the other of the three. It is true that beneath this structure there was a disquieting fact: seventy years before, Benjamin D’Israeli had emphatically warned Europeans that race was the basis of civilization, that “there is only one thing that makes a race, and that is blood,” that all the nations of Europe were covertly under the control of the Jews, and that the “destructive principle,” which was being used stealthily to undermine our civilization, was “developing entirely under the auspices of the Jews.” (4) Only a very few members of our race were sufficiently alert to understand what he had told them in the clearest possible terms. And thirty years before 1914, Friedrich Nietzsche had clearly foreseen that Europe faced “a long series of catastrophes” and “wars such as the world has not yet seen,” had perceived that our civilization was suffering from a degenerative disease of both intellect and will, and had identified the deadly infection as a superstition that the Jews had devised and disseminated to poison our minds and souls. (5) Only a few men of philosophical intellect understood him. Not only the masses, of whom rational thought for the future is not to be expected, but almost all of the persons who thought of themselves as an aristocracy or a learned elite were sunk in an euphoric complacency, believing in an effortless and automatic “progress” and the Jewish economic system in which money is the only value of human life.

Rather than seeing the root of the problem in spirit or ideology, as Yockey does, Oliver recognizes it as biological, while also noting the critical importance of awareness and perception, i.e. consciousness:

In 1914, our civilization was worm-eaten at the core, but its brightly glittering surface concealed the corruption within from superficial eyes. It was taken for granted that the globe had become one world, the world of which the Aryan nations were the undisputed masters, while all the lesser races already were, or soon would become, merely the subject inhabitants of their colonial possession. This reasonable conception of the world’s unity oddly survived the catastrophes that followed and it conditioned unthinking mentalities to accept the preposterous notions of the current propaganda for “One World,” which is couched in endless gabble that is designed to conceal the fact that it is to be a globe under the absolute and ruthless dominion of the Jews–a globe on which our race, if not exterminated, will be the most degraded and abject of all.

The apparent unity of the globe when it was under the dominion of our race depended, as must all rule, on military power, but it was so contentedly accepted by the other races in the various colonies because our power was proof of a biological superiority that was evident in the discipline of our troops and the courage, intelligence, and moral integrity of our men. (6) It was therefore a function of a biological unity that was only belatedly perceived by our people, and even then only by the few men who were able and willing to study the hidden foundations on which the imposing structure of power really rested, notably the Comte de Gobineau and Vacher de Lapouge. The reality of race was generally overlooked because men took the innate superiority of Europeans so for granted that they thought it unnecessary to mention it and instead concentrated their attention on the rivalries and antagonisms that divided the great powers of Europe, assuming that a shift in the balance of power in Europe would automatically be a shift in power over the entire globe.

On the rise of European self-image and self-consciousness since the Middle Ages:

With negligible exceptions, all the inhabitants of Europe thus defined were Aryans, comprising Nordic, Alpine, and Mediterranean subraces with a slight Dinaric admixture in some places. (8) The leadership throughout Europe (even, e.g., in Italy) was mostly Nordic. The differences between the subraces, although slight when compared to the great differences that distinguish Aryans from all other races, impeded a consciousness of racial unity at a time when Europe was truly international (and, to be exact, there were no nations in the modern sense, the territories being divided according to the rulers who were sovereign within them). The great contribution of the Church was that it transcended all territorial boundaries and gave all educated men a common language and common culture. They could move freely throughout Europe. William of Occam, the great Nominalist, studied at Oxford, taught in Paris, and spent the later part of his life in Pisa. The abbots of Monte Cassino in its great days came from Germany. One could multiply at great length examples of internationalism within Europe during the Middle Ages.

Yockey urged Europeans to consider the grim realities of the plight they brought upon themselves by their insane and suicidal war for the Jews. He told them bluntly that they must not permit themselves to be narcotized by the endless drivel about “peaceful solutions,” “world peace,” “one world,” and the rest of the gabble to which weak minds are addicted as to opium or cocaine. If they are to have a future, they must deal with both the aliens that drove them to suicide and their own tares, which he, using a German idiom, called the “Michael stratum.”

Yockey reminded Europeans that the only political reality is power, military power, not the twittering of idealists and “Liberals” as they hop from perch to perch on a tree of which they cannot see the roots or understand the life. And he suggested the means whereby Europe might regain at least some of the power that it had insanely thrown away to please its enemies.

Yockey prefigured contemporary Eurasianism:

Yockey saw Europe as lying, temporarily helpless, between two overwhelmingly powerful antagonists, so that the only choice left to it was a choice between its two enemies, which were fortunately enemies of each other. His thesis depended, therefore, on his belief that the Soviet Empire and the United States were irreconcilable forces. And since the United States was obviously an instrumentality of the Jews, that meant that the Jews had lost control of Russia. Yockey thus proposed a solution to a problem that has been earnestly, sometimes furiously, and in the end inconclusively debated ever since, so that it remains the most urgent problem that is immediately before us. On the truth or falsity of Yockey’s solution will depend our foreseeable future.

Oliver was skeptical:

We have been assured so many times that the Jews were losing or had lost control of Russia and the Soviet!

To the end of his life, Yockey remained convinced that a war between the Jews’ United States and the Soviet was inevitable. That conviction was the basis of his last essay, written shortly before his death in 1960.

Yockey was aware of the major objection to his analysis: If the Jews had lost control of Russia, how did it happen that the United States, which saved the Soviet in 1941-45, (25) continued to facilitate the expansion of Russian power?

Oliver quotes Yockey’s answer, which includes this accurate assessment of the motives and mentality of the jews:

It is a psychological riddle, decipherable only thus: the Zionists have two minds, which function independently. As Jews, they are committed to the destruction of Western Civilization, and in this they sympathize with Russia, with China, with Japan, with the Arabs, and as such they anathematize Germany, which is the mind and heart of the Western Civilization. As custodians of the United States, they must half-heartedly retain at least the technical and political domination of that Civilization even while destroying its soul and meaning. In a word, they are working simultaneously for and against the Western Civilization. Quite obviously, they are thus doing more damage than conferring benefit…..

‘Thus the newspaper tag of “East versus West” is meaningless. It is East versus East, with the West supplying the lives and treasure for destruction.’

Oliver was writing in 1981 concerning what Yockey had written before 1960. Lo and behold, here we are in 2014 and the jews’ never-ending efforts to spark destruction looms large now in Ukraine. A hundred years after the outbreak of WWI the jews are prodding what remains of Europe to the brink of WWIII.

Yockey on Culture and Race – Part 5


A hallmark of Yockey’s world-view is his anthropomorphization of concepts and abstractions. He spoke of them as if they were Greek Titans, with thoughts and goals of their own, distinct and set in opposition to one another.

At the root of it all Yockey saw two titanic ideas. From Imperium, page 115:

Two ideas are opposed — not concepts or abstractions, but Ideas which were in the blood of men before they were formulated by the minds of men.

But the greatest opposition of all has not yet been named, the conflict which will take up all the others into itself. This is the battle of the Idea of the Unity of the West against the nationalism of the 19th century. Here stand opposed the ideas of Empire and petty-stateism, large-space thinking and political provincialism.

Yockey’s Ideas are not ideas, but have agency and causality. His intangible immaterial mystical philosophizing is “organic”, while man and his rationalism is “inorganic”.

Yockey’s twisting of the meanings of words goes beyond poetic license, beyond an honest attempt to describe the indescribable. He verges into mysticism, detached from reality and facts, and in some cases to the contrary.

Nationalism and racialism are related, connected, complementary. Not opposites.

As Northside commented previously:

Yockey exalts telos (ultimate purpose or state) in his cosmology, constructing his envisioned universe such that an “organic” causal life force (existential source or basis of existence) operates unilaterally upon the mean, “inorganic” stuff of observable experience, which he debases.

Do ideas drive men, or do men drive ideas? The truth, I think, is not one or the other but both. Yockey arrogated telos (and causality, agency) to Ideas, while denying it to people. But Yockey himself was a man driven by ideas, to promote his ideas.

What constitutes organic? The organic is the inorganic plus something else. Yockey might have described this something as Ideas. I say the something is consciousness, awareness, agency. Consciousness is what distinguishes human life from inhuman, not to mention non-life, the inorganic.

Returning to Yockey’s critique of Darwinism, page 69:

The human soul itself — known as the “brain” in the 19th century — is only a tool by which a certain type of monkey advanced himself to man ahead of his fellow-monkeys. Teleology again: man became man in order that he might be man.

Yockey, like many critics of Darwinism, was apparently disturbed by the fact that man and monkey are biologically related, distant cousins. Similar like apples and oranges, the difference is consciousness – communication, coordination, history, culture.

It is understandable that Englishmen were the primary “social Darwinists”. Instrumental in deciphering the mechanics of life, of evolution, they naturally envisioned themselves as the result, the pinnacle of the process. This is more anthropic principle than anthropomorphism.

As a world view, Darwinism cannot of course be refuted, since Faith is, always has been, and always will be, stronger than facts. Nor is it important to refute it as a picture of the world, since as such it no longer influences any but day-before-yesterday thinkers. However, as a picture of the facts, it is grotesque, from its first assumptions to its last conclusions.

Yockey’s argument is even more applicable to his own faith in Ideas. Darwinism is based on science, a system farther from faith and closer to fact than any other man has yet devised.

In the first place, there is no “Struggle for existence” in nature; this old Malthusian idea merely projected Capitalism on to the animal world. Such struggles for existence as do occur


are the exception; the rule in Nature is abundance. There are plenty of plants for the herbivores to eat, and there are plenty of herbivores for the carnivores to eat. Between the latter there can hardly be said to be “struggle,” since only the carnivore is spiritually equipped for war.

The capitalistic mentality, engaged in a competition to get rich, quite naturally pictured the animal-world also as engaged in an intensive economic contest. Both Malthusianism and Darwinism are thus capitalistic outlooks, in that they place economics in the center of Life, and regard it as the meaning of Life.

Yockey anthropomorphized capitalism, though it is defined and driven by men. It does not have an existence or will of its own. Such things are constrained and shaped by the same forces, the same reality as the life from which it springs.

The “struggle for existence” is only a conscious struggle in man, who naturally projects his own awareness onto the unaware. Yockey does it himself when he imagines carnivores “spiritually equipped for war”.

The competition in nature is over limited resources. The rule in nature is feast and famine. The rabbits boom, then the coyotes boom, then the rabbits crash, and then the coyotes crash. Darwinism is an observation of the rules of the reality of life. Not just how the environment shapes and molds life, but also how various forms of life shape each other. This involves not only competition/predation, but also cooperation/symbiosis.

Natural selection was the name given to the process by which the “unfit” died out to give place to the “fit.”

Fitness, in evolution, is not a moral or aesthetic value judgement. It is an objective metric: survival. Life fits its environment like clothes fit a body.

I suspect that Yockey’s lame arguments against Darwinism were based on by his misunderstanding and thus revulsion toward “survival of the fittest”. He was perhaps unwilling to face the fact that the jews have out-competed Whites, rule us, and are slowly killing us. The problem, as I see it, is not with Darwinism, or rationalism, or any philosophical clash, but the simple fact that Whites, relative to jews, are not conscious.

Yockey on Culture and Race – Part 4


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

Imperium, page 62:

But the strength of the organism, even in crisis, is too great for a few intellectuals and their mobs to destroy it, and it goes its way. In the Western Civilization, the expansive tendency reached the point where by 1900, 18/20ths of the surface of the earth was controlled politically from Western capitals [by jews]. And this development merely brought an aggravation of the crisis, for this power-will of the West gradually awakened the slumbering masses of the outer world to political activity.

Before the inner war of classes had been liquidated, the outer war of races had begun. Annihilation-wars and World Wars, continuous internal strain in the form of unrelenting class-war, which regards outer war merely as a means of increasing its demands, the revolt of the colored races against the Western Civilization — these are the forms which this terrible crisis takes in the 20th century.

The peak of this long crisis exists now, in the period 1950-2000, and possibly in these very years will be decided forever the question whether the West is to fulfill its last life-phase. 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. World power for all great questions was decided in two outer capitals, Washington and Moscow. The smaller questions of provincial administration were left to the nations-become-colonies of the West, but in power-questions, the regimes based in Russia and America decided all.

The phrase “revolt of the colored races against the Western Civilization” evokes the theme of Lothrop Stoddard‘s The Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy (1920) and The Revolt Against Civilization (1922).

The significance of Yockey’s use of “18/20ths”, rather than 9/10ths or 90%, is unclear.

Yockey identified “the enemy” as “a few intellectuals and their mobs”. A bit further on he refers obliquely to the jews and other non-Whites:

The 20th century outlook is synonymous with the Future of the West, the perpetuation of the 19th century outlook means the continuation of the domination of the West by Culture-distorters and barbarians.

Skipping farther ahead, to page 115, Yockey fleshes out the two conflicting outlooks in his typical form, as a series of Grand Dichotomies:

In complete contradiction to our instinct, feelings, and ideas, the 19th century sits leering upon the throne of Europe

The conflict is far-reaching; it affects every sphere of Life. Two ideas are opposed — not concepts or abstractions, but Ideas which were in the blood of men before they were formulated by the minds of men. The Resurgence of Authority stands opposed to the Rule of Money; Order to Social Chaos, Hierarchy to Equality, socio-economico-political Stability to constant Flux; glad assumption of Duties to whining for Rights; Socialism to Capitalism, ethically, economically, politically; the Rebirth of Religion to Materialism; Fertility to Sterility; the spirit of Heroism to the spirit of Trade; the principle of Responsibility to Parliamentarism; the idea of Polarity of Man and Woman to


Feminism; the idea of the individual task to the ideal of “happiness”; Discipline to Propaganda-compulsion; the higher unities of family, society, State to social atomism; Marriage to the Communistic ideal of free love; economic self-sufficiency to senseless trade as an end in itself; the inner imperative to Rationalism.

But the greatest opposition of all has not yet been named, the conflict which will take up all the others into itself. This is the battle of the Idea of the Unity of the West against the nationalism of the 19th century. Here stand opposed the ideas of Empire and petty-stateism, large-space thinking and political provincialism. Here find themselves opposed the miserable collection of yesterday-patriots and the custodians of the Future. The yesterday-nationalists are nothing but the puppets of the extra-European forces who conquer Europe by dividing it. To the enemies of Europe, there must be no rapprochement, no understanding, no union of the old units of Europe into a new unit, capable of carrying on 20th century politics.

As we see here, Yockey tended not only to think in polarized terms, but to anthropomorphize, imparting human-like agency to inhuman, inanimate, intangible concepts and abstractions. Rather than seeing Hierarchy and Equality, for example, as ideals given life and driven by man, Yockey argued as if they exist outside man and drive themselves.

Here, near the beginning of Yockey’s book, even before his critique of “liberalism”, he attacks Darwinism. Several of his arguments are simply wrong, and there are disturbing similarities to what anti-“racist”/anti-White critics of “social Darwinism” and “scientific racism” have argued.

Contra such criticism, my previous series of podcasts on Race and Genetics lays out the biological basis of race and a rough history of racial science.

Page 65:

The great foundations of the old outlook were Rationalism and Materialism. They will be completely examined in this work, but here it is proposed to treat only three thought-systems, Darwinism, Marxism, Freudianism, products of materialistic thought, all of which were the focus of great spiritual energy in the 19th century, and which, continuing to have a vogue in the early 20th century, contributed greatly to lead Europe into its present abyss.

Page 68:

The basic idea of Darwinism — evolution — is as little novel as the particular theories of the system. Evolution is the great central idea of the philosophy of the 19th century.

Darwin’s basic idea was to explain the mechanics: evolution = modification/mutation + selection.

Darwin’s system has two aspects, of which only one is treated here, for only one was effective. This was Darwinism as a popular philosophy.

I discussed “Darwinism as a popular philosophy” and Herbert Spencer in Race and Genetics – Part 2 and Part 3.

Page 69:

The system shows its provenance as a product of the Age of Criticism in its teleological assumptions. Evolution has purpose — the purpose of producing man, civilized man, English man — in the last analysis, Darwinians. It is anthropomorphic — the “aim of evolution” is not to produce bacilli, but humanity.

This is the kind of argument that the race-denying jew Stephen Gould used to make.