The Enemy of Our Enemies: A Critique of Francis Parker Yockey’s The Enemy of Europe (Section 3)
by Revilo P. Oliver
THERE IS A modicum of truth in the frowsty verbiage about “One World” that used to excite women’s clubs. It has always been obvious that there is only one earth, (1) but although an educated Roman in the first century B.C. could dream of a day when the invincible legions would add even China to the Empire, (2) he could also think of the oecumene, the inhabited part of the globe, as consisting, for all practical purposes, of the Roman Empire and the territories bordering on it. He was secure in the confidence that whatever happened in more distant regions, such as China and India, could have no possible effect on his world, except, perhaps, on the importation of rare luxuries and curiosities.
(1. Since the very foundation of our rational thought is our perception of our place in the universe, it is worthy of note that only in 1978 did it become absolutely certain that the one earth is also unique. Fontenelle’s Entretiens sur la pluralit‚ des mondes in 1686 made popular the romantic fancy, which had been entertained speculatively by some Greek philosophers of Antiquity, that there were many planets that were doubtless inhabited by beings like ourselves. With the advance of astronomical knowledge, the possibilities were reduced to two planets in our solar system, Venus and Mars, and it was only when the surfaces of both had been clearly photographed that we knew how terribly alone we are in the universe. Some of our tender-minded contemporaries now console themselves with speculations about hypothetical inhabitants of hypothetical planets that may circle about some stars. Quite aside from the practical considerations that a space-craft, such as landed men on the moon, could not reach the nearest star in less than 700,000 years, this is sheer phantasy. As was concisely stated by the distinguished Australian biologist, Sir John C. Eccles, “there is no evidence that life started more than once” in the entire universe, and “the chances of rational beings existing elsewhere in the universe are so remote as to be out of the question.” This fact, as significant in its way as the Copernican revolution, will profoundly affect our whole Weltanschauung in coming decades.)
(2. E.g., Lucan, I. 19.)
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.
(4. Coningsby (1844) and Endymion (1880) are novels, but, as D’Israeli (who changed his name to Disraeli) explained in a preface to the former, they are political discourses put into the form which “offered the best chance of influencing public opinion.” The same views were expressed in many of his speeches, both in and outside of Parliament. Some persons, notably Douglas Reed in his last and posthumous book, The Controversy of Zion (Durban, South Africa, 1978; available from Liberty Bell Publications), believe that D’Israeli, who professed to be a Christian, was sincerely trying to warn his contemporaries in Britain of the menace that would eventually destroy them. Others note that he always received massive support from the Jews in England and elsewhere, and especially from the Rothschilds when he made his dramatic gesture of buying control of the Suez Canal and then selling it to Great Britain when the British government could raise the money. He may have told the truth about race as a calculated gambit, feeling certain that the British were too stupid to understand. He was not in any sense a defector from his race, which he described as the true “aristocracy of the world,” but he courteously told his British hosts that their race could aspire to equality with his. He thus inspired the absurd myth of “British Israel,” the preposterous notion that the British (but not other Aryans) were the Israelites of the “Old Testament” and should reunite with their fellow Jews to rule the world. Even those who believe that D’Israeli assimilated, rather than simulated, British culture have to admit that he, who became the Earl of Beaconsfield in the British (!) peerage and Prime Minister to Queen Victoria, opened the way to power for the most vicious of England’s resident enemies. See below, pp. 66f., and the analysis of his political activities by Rudolf Craemer, Benjamin Disraeli (Hamburg, 1940).)
(5. Also sprach Zarathustra was published in 1883-84, and Zur Genealogie der Moral, the most incisive of the later works, appeared in 1887. Note that Nietzsche, like all of his contemporaries, took it for granted that the world belonged to the European race, which was menaced only by the rotting of its own moral fibre, not by external enemies. He was, of course, right at that time. For a suggestive discussion of the folly that led to the suicide of Europe, see the work by Luis D¡ez del Corral that is available in H.V. Livermore’s excellent translation, The Rape of Europe (London, 1959).)
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. Ignoring D’Israeli’s blunt statement that “language and religion do not make a race,” men generally thought in geographic terms: Europe was a region with odd prolongations to Canada, Australia, the United States, and other lands possessed by a European people.
(6. General Hilton, in his Imperial Obituary (Devon, Britons, 1968), remarks on the very significant fact that during the Pax Britannica an English gentleman, if he ran short of funds anywhere in the world, could borrow money from a native shopkeeper or man of means without difficulty, since there was never doubt about his absolute integrity and hence the certainty of repayment. When he was in Tibet, a region seldom visited by outsiders, the abbot of a Buddhist monastery unhesitatingly lent him 700 rupees–a large sum for the time and place–although his only security was trust in a British gentleman’s honor. General Hilton’s analysis of the causes of Great Britain’s suicide is one of the most important documents of our time.)
It is not easy to determine when our people first became aware that Europe was inhabited by men who differed generically from the inhabitants of other parts of the world. The perception seems to have evolved slowly from the effective unity of Europe created by the preservation of Latin as the common language of educated men, which, in turn, depended on the religious unity of Western Christianity. A very clear statement of it appears in a discourse by Pope Urban II in 1095, reported by William of Malmsbury. (7) Urban regarded the Germanic peoples of France as a “race chosen and loved by God,” but he recognized European unity by saying, in substance: “There are three continents, of which we live in what is by far the smallest, while Asia and Africa are inhabited by our enemies. Even the small part of the world that we possess is under attack by our enemies, who now occupy Spain and the Balearic Isles. We must strike back and subdue them before they destroy us.” We, in other words, are Christendom, and it is significant that while Urban recognizes the Byzantines as Christians and asserts the propriety of aiding them against the Turks, he does not think of them as European: they are foreigners who fortunately practice what is much the same religion. In short then, Lawrence Brown is right when, in his Might of the West, he defines the West as composed of the descendants of the peoples who were Catholics in the Middle Ages.
(7. William’s Gesta regum Anglorum, written before 1120, was edited by William Stubbs (London, 1887-89). My quotation is a condensed paraphrase of the relevant part of Urban’s discourse, which was long and dealt with many other matters. Frederic Duncalf, in his part of Volume I of A History of the Crusades (edited by M.W. Baldwin, University of Wisconsin, 1969), observes (p. 220) that William relied on contemporaries who had heard Urban speak, but he oddly omits mention of Urban’s appeal to defend Europe against its enemies by taking the offensive; he concentrates on the strictly religious and economic parts of the speeches by which Urban inspired the First Crusade.)
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.
(8. The clearest and most concise exposition of the basic difference between races and subraces that I have seen is Roger Pearson’s booklet Race & Civilisation (London, 1966).)
The Renaissance did not diminish, indeed, it strengthened the awareness of the spiritual chasm that divided Europe from the rest of the globe. When the Reformation sundered the continent politically, its cultural unity was maintained by the Respublica litterarum, the European community of educated men who rose above the religious fanaticism of the masses and were largely independent of the various ecclesiastical organizations. They shared a culture based on the great Aryan literature and thought of Antiquity. From Spitzbergen to Palermo, every man who could consider himself literate had at least read Vergil, Horace, and Ovid, Cicero, and Livy, and read Homer, Plutarch, Lucian, and the Planudean anthology in Latin translations, if his education had not been sufficient to make him at home in Greek, while men who could claim to be learned had read far more extensively in both of the learned languages. Latin of Classic quality was the language of scholarship and of international communication until it was partly supplanted by French in the Eighteenth Century. Although original writing in Latin, both prose and verse, and translation into Latin from the modern vernaculars gradually but steadily declined thereafter and has all but ceased today, a knowledge of our race’s great classics, read in the original texts, was expected of all educated men before the onset of recrudescent barbarism that followed the First World War; and cultured men of our race remained aware of their common bond.
For this bond there has been no real replacement. When Thomas Arnold, in 1830, asserted that a “happy peace” had “taught every civilized country of Europe” that it was “disgraceful” not to be well acquainted with the languages and literatures of all the others, he meant that educated men must acquire (in addition to competence in Latin and Greek) fluency in French, Italian, German, and English; he not only failed to explain why countries in which Spanish, Portuguese, Norwegian, Swedish, Dutch, etc. were spoken were not civilized, but he proposed an educational standard to which few could attain. Today, English or recognizable imitations of it seems to be becoming a universal language, spoken and written not only our people but also by Asiatics and even some Congoids, thus obfuscating its racial quality, since a Japanese may artificially compose better English than many Germans, who must struggle against the many deceptive similarities between it and their native tongue. In the United States, and to varying degrees in other white nations, literature is no longer taught in any language in the public schools, having been supplanted by contemporary gabble chosen for its virulence as a poison for adolescent minds. The real sciences are not an effective bond since our research and our technology can be successfully imitated and even adopted by Russians, Japanese, Chinese, and Semites, thus producing an illusion of universality that seems to support Jewish propaganda for “One World,” in which we are to be but one of the subject races.
After the catastrophe of 1945, our race’s fatuity became so great that the bond between once-great Britain and the British overseas in Canada, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand was progressively broken, and Europe has become a merely geographical term. Politically, Europe has become less than it was in the Middle Ages, for treason and lunacy went so far in 1945 as to deliver a large part of it to its Soviet enemies. But nevertheless, the peoples of what remains of Mediaeval Christendom are perforce bound together by a common interest, whether they know it or not, and, as Yockey demonstrated in both Imperium and The Enemy of Europe, they will ineluctably share a common fate. At the very best, no nation of what remains of the old Europe can hope to escape that future, except that some one nation may be given the privilege that the cannibals accorded to the white captain when they promised to eat him last. One hears that the Irish are particularly encouraged by such a prospect.
That some Europeans are aware of the unity thus forced on them is shown by a few small organizations, such as “Jeune Europe” and Nation Europa, which the Jews still tolerate. The only political expression of this unity is the “Common Market,” to which most of the European nations, including Britain, have adhered, but that is obviously a device to frustrate an effective unity by opening all the nations to a deadly influx of their racial enemies in the guise of “workers” or “refugees,” while forcing Britain into hostility toward the British in Australia and New Zealand and thus applying to those countries economic pressure to facilitate the work of their own traitors, who yearn to submerge the white population in a flood of their Oriental enemies. It is not by any means a coincidence that the “President” of the “European Parliament” is Simone Veil, a Jewess who was gassed and cremated by the awful Germans, but obviously rose from the dead, as God’s Race seems able to do on occasion, and is probably still collecting from the Germans for her temporary decease.
The Enemy of Europe presents us with a double problem. To criticize Yockey’s work, we must, naturally, consider the situation in 1949, when he published The Proclamation of London, a small booklet in which he anticipated in print part of what he said more fully in the book which he had already written, although it was not published until 1953. (9) To assess the relevance of his work to our plight today, we must naturally take account of all the misfortunes that have come upon us in the past thirty years.
(9. On the circumstances of the publication of The Enemy of Europe, see above, pp. 1f. The Proclamation of London was issued anonymously as a manifesto of the “European Liberation Front,” in which Yockey was associated with several patriotic Englishmen, notably Peter Huxley-Blythe, the author of The East Came West (Caldwell, Idaho, 1964), a very important book, which I reviewed in American Opinion, May 1966. What is probably the most trenchant writing attributed to the Liberation Front is a brief article, “The Real Culprit,” reprinted in Liberty Bell, March 1981, pp. 53-56. The anonymous author claims to be over seventy years old; neither the style nor the argument is Yockey’s, and the article was obviously written after 1970, i.e., at least nine years after his death and twenty years after the Front founded by Yockey disintegrated for a variety of reasons that must be left to his future biographer. It is clear, however, that the programme of his Liberation Front, set forth on the back cover of the Proclamation, was injudiciously candid and not too drastic for the time and place. The integration of Britain into a single sovereign European state was a proposal that startled Britons who remembered that for a time their nation had seemed to stand alone against the continent, and in addition that manifesto called for the “immediate expulsion of all Jews and other parasitic aliens from the soil of Europe,” a demand which it would not have been feasible to carry out at once and startling to a nation that had just ruined itself to punish its racial brethren in Germany for insubordination to God’s Race, even though the policy of exporting Jews from Europe was entirely in accord with Zionist propaganda for the establishment of a “Jewish homeland,” which many naive persons took seriously. The programme of the Front, furthermore, included some economic demands, especially “the abolition of all unearned income,” which (at least in the bald statement) contravened the innate instincts of Aryans, who (when not diseased) insist on a man’s right to transmit property to his descendants. That demand, which must have seemed Bolshevik to most Englishmen, was exploited by Jewish propaganda that called Yockey a Communist. The Proclamation was reprinted by the Nordland Press in 1970, the editor knew of only three surviving copies of the original booklet. It is now available from Liberty Bell Publications.)
In 1949, what was left of shattered Europe was only beginning to recover from trauma. Everywhere there were grim ruins left by the suicidal insanity that had culminated only four years before, and it would be another decade before the most conspicuous scars of the war were effaced or covered up. The moral damage was greater and more lasting. Men were still appalled and benumbed by the frightful demonstration of how thin and fragile was the veneer of Western civilzation–by the revelation of what treachery, barbarity, and inhumanity the supposedly Anglo-Saxon nations, Britain and the United States, were capable when they ran amok to please the Jews. There were, to be sure, some highly intelligent men who had been able observe objectively the G”tterd„mmerung. Perhaps the most remarkable book that Yockey could have (but, so far as I know, had not) read, since it was published before 1949, was Peter H. Nicoll’s Britain’s Blunder. (10) It is a book that should encourage everyone who has not despaired of the powers of the Aryan mind, for its author, a singularly courageous Scot, had retained the lucidity and perspicacity of his intellect while living in Britain, where the population had been virtually crazed by the lies injected into their minds for many years by their great War Criminals, in collaboration with the Jews, to pep up the cattle they were stampeding to the slaughter. Although Mr. Nicoll, naturally, did not have access to much information that was then kept secret, he saw the essentials of the disaster with a clarity that still arouses our admiration.
(10. Britain’s Blunder was published by its author, s.l.&a.  and copies of it have been made extremely rare; it has been recently reprinted, again s.l.&a., and copies are available from various dealers in books that have not been given the Kosher seal of approval. It is a slender volume of 140 pages, which its valiant author later expanded, with the assistance of the distinguished American historian, Harry Elmer Barnes, to a book of about 600 pages. This, however, is available only in a German translation, Englands Krieg gegen Deutschland (Tbingen, 1963). I assume, but do not know, that the Jews still permit the German publisher (Grabert) to sell copies of the book.)
Another judicious observer of the European catastrophe was Prince Sturdza of Romania, who had the great advantage of being able to view events with relative detachment from his post as Ambassador in Berlin. His sagacious analysis of the plight of Europe, La Bˆte sans nom: enquˆte sur les responsibilit‚s, written in September 1942, was published in 1944 and, of course, before the terrible conclusion of the Jews’ Crusade. (11) Although Prince Sturdza wrote before the tragic end, a judicious reader could extrapolate from his analysis of the causes and reach, after 1945, essentially the conclusions that its eminent author set forth in print much later in a book which he, who could write in fluid and lucid French, mistakenly wrote in Romanian, (12) and which is now generally available only in an English translation, drastically censored to please the Jews, that was made and published by the Birch business under the title, The Suicide of Europe. (13)
(11. La Bˆte sans nom was published at Copenhagen (Les Nouvelles ditions Diplomatiques) in 1944 under the pseudonym “Charpeleu” and in an edition of 2000 copies. Copies of it have now been made extremely rare. Prince Sturdza, before going to Berlin as Ambassador, had been Foreign Minister of Romania, a small nation that was necessarily a pawn in the great game for world dominion, but one which, it is possible, was the key pawn that determined subsequent moves on the board. He, a most judicious and dispassionate observer, believes that the coup d’‚tat and murders carried out by King Carol and his Jewish leman in 1938 impelled Hitler to negotiate a “non-aggression” treaty with the Soviet as a desperate expedient to avoid the war that the Jews’ stooges in Britain and the United States were working so hard to force on Germany. (See Suicide of Europe, pp. 122-4). Hitler’s decision, made on the advice on his General Staff and, no doubt, the infamous traitor, Admiral Canaris, may have been a military blunder, as Prince Sturdza believes; it was certainly a blunder from the standpoint of Hitler’s desire to avert a war with England and France, for it made possible for the Jews to generate “world opinion” that National Socialism and Communism were essentially the same thing, and it is extremely doubtful that the War Criminals could have driven the British and Americans to an attack on Germany without the confusion caused by that spurious “alliance.”)
(12. R”mania si sfƒrsitul Europei: amintir din tara pierduta (Madrid, 1966).)
(13. Boston (Western Islands), 1968. The translation and publication was subsidized by an American lady, who said she did not know how drastically the text was censored. For a few examples of the censor’s alterations, see Warren B. Heath’s introduction to the English version of Bacu’s The Anti-Humans (Englewood, Colorado, 1971; now available from Liberty Bell Publications).)
The two books I have mentioned represent the best European thought around 1949, which, needless to say, was confined to a few men of extraordinary lucidity and perspicacity, and certainly did not represent the sentiments of the masses of stunned and befuddled victims of the war, whether in England or anywhere on the continent. What immediately concerns us here is the virtual despair of the authors. Nicoll concluded that “the general consequences of the most lamentable and perhaps the most unnecessary war in modern history” were “the destruction of Europe, the ruin of her greatest nation, the enthronement of brutal tyranny” and the “decadence of Britain as a great power,” which had become an American base and would be, ” in years to come…subjected to the appalling fate to which Hiroshima and Nagasaki were condemned.” The instigators of the British attack on Germany had effectively “destroyed the classical Christian civilization of all Europe,” and while Nicoll does not deny that there may be some hope of a new civilization to replace what was destroyed, he can see only a vague and tenuous hope for a far distant future. Prince Sturzda’s conclusions are stated in the title of his later book: the result of Jewish instigation was simply the Suicide of Europe, which, for all practical purposes, became what India was in the Eighteenth Century when Britain and France were contending for mastery: Europe had become a territory on which would be fought battles to determine whose colony it would become. Such hope as Prince Sturdza permitted himself was that the American people might someday have a government that would act in their own interests.
The contrast between these views and the optimism of the Proclamation is obvious, and the expressed confidence in the proximate formation of an European Imperium must have been an example of wishful thinking. In The Enemy of Europe Yockey is much more realistic. He explicitly recognizes (p. 86) that “since Europe has no power, the question is: How is power to be obtained?” Europe as a whole has only a choice of enemies. Its only chance of regaining power depends on adroit political manoeuvering.
In that sense, the European unity that Yockey recognized is an unalterable fact, whether or not the various European populations know it. It is simply a consequence of the Suicide of Europe and the invention of high-altitude bombers and ballistic missiles. It is a consequence of the British-American innovation of total war against civilian populations. A war, for example, between France and Germany or between Britain and France is now, for all practical purposes, inconceivable, although people talk about an odd anachronism called a ‘limited war,’ in which both sides agree to use only some of the available weapons and thus, in effect, make the ‘war’ a kind of sporting contest, a large-scale football game.
Despite much babbling and squawking now fashionable, a ‘limited’ war can be only border skirmishing or a feint to test an enemy’s resolution, a mere preliminary to a real war. (14)
(14. It is true that Western nations at one time observed certain moral restraints in war, but since these were repudiated and abrogated by the British and Americans, it is idle to dream of restoring them in the foreseeable future. See F.J.P. Veale, Advance to Barbarism (2d edition, Appelton, Wisconsin, 1953; 3d edition, New York, 1968). (I have not seen the first edition, published in England in 1948; I probably should have mentioned it when I referred to Nicoll’s book above.) — I need not remark that the ‘limited war’ in Vietnam was merely a device to kill white Americans, oppress American taxpayers, and further disgrace the United States. It was not in any sense a real war: the eventual defeat of the Americans was agreed on in advance, though probably not in writing. The importation into the United States of a horde of Mongolian enemies as “refugees” was probably not a part of the original plan and seems to have been added only when opportunity offered to afflict the American boobs yet further.)
Given the small extent of their territories and the concentration of their populations, a real war between Britain and France, for example, could be only the equivalent of the situation that was once much debated by theorists of the code of honor, a duel to be fought with pistols at arm’s length. At the present time, the only powers that could fight a real war are the United States and the two that it created for the destruction of civilization, Soviet Russia and China.
Yockey, therefore, was right: the nations of Europe can no longer be independent of each other, however unpleasant that fact may be. If either England or France were occupied by a major power, the other would be helpless. And all the nations of Europe, concentrated in a relatively small and densely settled territory between the Soviet and the United States, are equally vulnerable and will necessarily share the same fate. Thus Europe, nolens volens, is a single political entity.
In 1949, Europe still had extensive possessions overseas. The British not only entertained strange illusions about what they called their Commonwealth and the consequences of their folly in forcing “self-government” on their former subjects of other races, but Britain still possessed very extensive territories in Asia and Africa, and even some in the Western Hemisphere, as crown colonies of which she had not yet been stripped by the traitors in her government. France possessed Indo-China until it was taken from her by American treachery (15) and Communist China, which the Americans had created by stabbing their Chinese allies in the back. France considered Algeria a part of “metropolitan” France. In addition to the numerous minor possessions, she owned Madagascar and half of the Dark Continent north of the British Union of South Africa, while the rest of the territories of the savages were divided between Britain, Belgium, Portugal, and Spain, and the colonies that had been taken from Italy were booty that in a sane world Britain and France would have divided between them. And although the United States had set up a kind of vaudeville show called the “United Nations” to disguise a little its subservience to its enemies in the Soviet and further the subjugation of the American people, there was in 1949 no apparent reason why the European nations, which had not yet realized that they had defeated themselves as catastrophically as they defeated Germany in 1945, should not have retained and ruled their colonial empires.
(15. The nerve center of Communist agitation among the natives was evidently the American embassy, in which inflammatory bulletins urging the natives to get rid of the nasty white men were printed on the embassy’s presses. So far as one can determine from the conflicting reports, the Americans promised military aid to the French, should the Chinese invasion become formidable, and then broke their promise at the last minute when the situation at Dienbienphu became critical, thus producing the delightful massacre of the French troops, which had been hopelessly outnumbered by a fresh invasion from China. Americans who dote on Mongoloids naturally reck nothing of the American lives that were squandered in Vietnam, but they should try to calculate the total of all the precious yellow lives that were lost in Annam, Cochin China (“South Vietnam”), Cambodia, Laos, and Tonkin (“North Vietnam”) as a direct result of the Americans’ racial and diplomatic betrayal of the French to promote lovely “anti-colonialism.”)
It is true that in 1949 our race was already showing alarming symptoms of a kind of epidemic lunacy called “anti-colonialism,” which was supposedly derived from the prating of a shyster named Woodrow Wilson, whom the Jews had installed as President of the United States in preparation of the First World War. (16) A bigot who had peddled an ostensibly secular theology under the name of “political science,” Wilson, when he used the United States to exacerbate the war in Europe and prevent a reasonable peace, had devised a mysticism called “the self-determination of peoples,” which, like “theosophy” and “spiritualism,” had a great appeal to minds that had been weakened by Christian superstitions. And, oddly enough, Great Britain, which had the most to lose by self-mortification, was the first Western nation to take a morbid pleasure in harming itself. (17) Incidentally, sentimentalists should note that the Western nations that contracted a kind of contagious epilepsy and had masochistic fits in which they forced “self-determination” on their colonies, invariably inflicted great suffering and enormous loss of life on the subjects whom they “liberated.”
(16. On the training of Wilson by the Jews, who boasted that their satrap, Baruch, “leading him like [sic] one would a poodle on a string,” taught Fido to sit up and bark ideals for political bonbons, see Colonel Curtis B. Dall’s F.D.R. (2d ed., Washington, D.C. 1970), especially pp. 134-38. Wilson seems not to have been entirely devoid of conscience, for he is reported to have lamented, “I have ruined my country!” before his mind broke down in 1919, perhaps under the strain of realizing that he, a supreme egotist, had been merely a fantoche in the hands of his masters. His insanity was, of course, concealed from the American boobs, whose government continued to be conducted in his name until 1921. He partly recovered his reason before his death in 1924, but left, so far as is known, no confessions. His election to the presidency in 1912 was, of course, contrived by stimulating the vanity of Theodore Roosevelt and inciting him to form the “Progressive Party” and thus split the Republican vote and punish William Howard Taft for his lack of alacrity in kowtowing to the Jews. As Colonel Dall notes, the Jews laughed over their manipulation of Theodore Roosevelt, their “other candidate” for control of the United States.)
(17. The psychopathology of masochism would require a separate treatise. Such mental alienation in various races, usually as a concomitant of religious mania, but may take a peculiar form in Aryans, beginning with the notion of tapas that appears in India not long after the Aryan conquest and also in the Norse myth of Odin’s hanging of himself on the world-tree. The hallucination is, of course, the basis of Christian austerities, appearing in most tales about saints, and particularly conspicuous in Seventeenth-Century Spain, where normally intelligent men had fits in which they lashed their backs with whips weighted with lead until the blood from their excoriated flesh flowed down over their trousers. They imagined that Jesus, if he happened to be watching, would be pleased to see them torture themselves. The same hallucinations are epidemic today in a holy conspiracy called Opus Dei, which was used by “our” C.I.A. to undermine and eventually capture the government of General Franco in Spain, for the members of that Catholic sect regularly torture themselves by wearing sharp-pointed chains next to their flesh and flogging themselves with lead-loaded whips, confident that Jesus will be so pleased that he will assign them specially luxurious quarters in the best apartment house in Heaven and make them members of his own exclusive club. Incredible as it may seem, men who appear outwardly sane secretly indulge in such masochistic perversions. A Catholic Irishman, John Roche, a professor of the History of Science (!) with a doctoral degree from Oxford (!), was bewitched by Opus Dei when he was an undergraduate in an Irish college and acquired an addiction to self-torment that he compared to addiction to narcotics. He did God’s Work by torturing himself for fourteen years (and doubtless serving the conspiracy in other ways), and he experienced “withdrawal symptoms” after he came to his senses. See his confession in the Sunday Times (London), 18 January 1981, p. 15. Even now, however, he has not guessed that the godly Opus Dei is partly or entirely financed by the C.I.A.)
In 1949, Great Britain had already begun to destroy herself, and although some mental and moral deficiency in the English must be regarded as the primary cause, it could be argued that the fatal folly was a consequence of the initial blunder that was made when D’Israeli was injected into the British peerage. A Jew named Samuel, who showed his contempt for the English by assuming the illustrious Norman name of Montagu, so enriched himself by his depredations in banking and international finance that his friend, Kind Edward VII, ennobled him with the good Anglo-Saxon name of Baron Swaythling. (Si quid sentiunt Manes, the ghost of the first King Edward, who had tried to run the Jews out of England in 1290, must have gibbered in fury at the act of his namesake.) The “British” Baron’s son became Secretary of State for India in 1917 and worked, sometimes slyly, sometimes almost openly, to undermine British rule in India and to arouse among the natives discontent that could be used as a pretext for further sabotage of the Empire. In collaboration with Viscount Chelmsford, who was closely tied by marriage to the Goldmans and may have had Jewish genes himself, and who became Viceroy of India in 1916, “Montagu” prepared in the name of the King’s government an official and astounding report on India–astounding because its authors were not attainted for high treason. The crucial section of the long and rambling document is cited by General Hilton in his Imperial Obituary. The report bewailed the deplorable fact that 95% of all the peoples of India were happily content under British rule and hoped for its continuance. It was therefore England’s duty, the titled saboteurs said, to “bring about the most radical revolution” in India to enable the 5% of malcontents to terrorize and suppress the “pathetically contented” 95% and thus prepare India for “nationhood,” i.e., for perpetual rioting, the venomous racial animosities that always accompany multi-racial societies that are not under foreign rule, large-scale massacres, savage atrocities, and contemptuous hatred of white men.
The work of dismembering the British Empire was carried on by a Jew residing in England, Rufus Isaacs, who was rewarded for his involvement in the malodorous Marconi scandal (18) by being successively created Baron, Viscount Earl, and finally Marquess of Reading, Lord Chief Justice (!) of England, and Viceroy of India, where he made a feint of maintaining British rule while sapping its foundations. (19) His fellow tribesmen ran interference for him in England by a standard ploy, using their increasing control of the English press to publicize shrill protests that he was “brutally” failing to truckle sufficiently to the “aspirations” of babbling babes, whose minds had been stuffed with “democratic” verbiage in British schools. And so, in 1947, the British ignominiously retreated from their largest colonial possession, and the Hindus and Moslems promptly began to massacre each other on a scale that brought joy to the hearts of the apostles of “self-determination.” And the “Republic of India” and Pakistan were created as enemies of our race and civilization.
(18. A typical financial operation carried out by artfully depressing the value of Marconi stock in both England and the United States to induce its owners to sell for a fraction of its worth and then artfully inflating its value to sell it to the public for more than it was worth. It involved the bribery of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, an unprincipled opportunist named Lloyd George, by the common device of “selling” him at depressed prices stock for which he would not be expected to pay until it greatly increased in value (it soared suddenly to twelve times its former price). English newspapers that were still in English hands sometimes caricatured Lloyd George as a little boy traveling under the escort of his two Jewish tutors, Isaacs and Samuel.)
(19. See the inadvertent admissions in the laudatory biography by H. Montgomery Hyde, Lord Reading (London, 1967), Chapter 8. For example, he censured and forced the resignation of General Dyer for having restored order in Amritsar after a mob killed five Englishmen, beat an Englishwoman almost to death, looted banks, and otherwise exhibited their idealistic aspiration. The fact that General Dyer had been publicly thanked by the decent Sikhs, who bestowed on him the highest honor in their power, merely proved the need for the “radical revolution” that would teach them “nationhood” and perpetual violence. Another trick was a loud campaign to end “racial discrimination,” an infallible means of stirring up trouble and inciting other races to hate ours.)
Yockey certainly understood that the “successful Indian Mutiny in 1947,” as he called it in the Proclamation, was a consequence of the First World War, which was itself suicidal and an effect of the “Culture-disease” spread by the Jews, but he does not remark on the curious circumstance that the British retreat from India had been conducted, not by Englishmen, but by aliens with British titles. He comments on the fatal decadence of the British aristocracy and upper class, (20) which he attributed correctly to a spiritual decay, but, perhaps in keeping with the racial theory we noticed above, he does not ask the drastic and fearful question, How British are the British? It is a crucial question that admits of no precise answer, and discussion of it would require an inordinately long excursus. (Cf. note 27 below.)
(20. General Hilton (op. cit.), writing from an entirely different standpoint, also attributes some part of the responsibility for the loss of the Empire to the dilution and demoralization of the upper classes by “democracy” and Jewish ethics. The subject races respected gentlemen (cf. note 6 above), but not the bounders who gradually replaced them in an age in which a Lloyd George could become the King’s Prime Minister and harbor several Jews in his Cabinet. The General could have mentioned the most flagrant instance of which I have heard. Around 1925, a certain Charles Arthur, who probably could not have attained a commission in the army before 1914 and certainly could not have held it long, was a Captain in His Majesty’s Army and was appointed by His Majesty’s Government Aide-de-Camp to Prince Hari Singh, son and heir presumptive to the Maharaja of Kashmir. The up-to-date young captain enlisted several accomplices and worked the old badger-game on the na‹f young prince, whom they successfully blackmailed for the astonishing sum of 125,000 pounds sterling. Their enterprise would have remained unknown, had not Captain Arthur and one or more of his accomplices forged an endorsement on a cheque to cheat the “outraged husband” of his share of the loot.)
To Be Continued…