FRANCIS PARKER YOCKEY
Francis Parker Yockey was born in
Chicago in 1917. He graduated with honors from Notre Dame in 1941. After a short
wartime stint in the Army he served as Assistant Prosecuting Attorney for Wayne
County (Detroit, MI). He took a position with the War Crimes Tribunal in 1946 (a
legal bit of gobbledygook which preceded a hanging orgy*)
and shortly quit in disgust. Later, in 1948, he wrote Imperium while living in
Ireland. Our State Department refused to renew his passport. He was seized when
he entered the country, and thereafter jailed where he mysteriously died on June
So sadistic was this Purim execution, that the trap door and rope length were
calculated in a fashion that the victims would drop and smash their faces on the
ledge before the slack was taken up. In addition,
most were brutally beaten and
tortured prior to their hanging.
Go to articles:
On Propaganda in America by FRANCIS PARKER YOCKEY
by Francis Parker Yockey
Dreamer of the Day - Francis Parker Yockey and the Postwar Fascist
International Reviewed by Martin Kerr.
TRAGEDY OF YOUTH Their Generation, Now Unemployed, Must Fight
Then Become Slaves in Red State That Follows. Written August
1939 by Francis P. Yockey
DIMLY, I could make out the
form of this man -- this strange and lonely man -- through the thick wire
netting. Inwardly, I cursed these heavy screens that prevented our
confrontation. For even though our mutual host was the San Francisco County
Jail, and even though the man upon whom I was calling was locked in equality
with petty thieves and criminals, I knew that I was in the presence of a great
force, and I could feel History standing aside me.
Yesterday, the headlines had
exploded their sensational discovery. "MYSTERY MAN WITH THREE PASSPORTS
JAILED HERE," they screamed. A man of mystery -- of wickedness -- had been
captured. A man given to dark deeds and -- much worse -- forbidden thoughts,
too, the journalists squealed. A man who had roamed the earth on mysterious
missions and who was found to be so dangerous that his bail was set at $50,000
-- a figure ten or twenty times the normal bail for passport fraud. The
excitement of the newspapers and the mystery of it all seemed to indicate that
this desperado was an international gangster, or a top communist agent.
At least, this is what
the papers hinted. But I know now that it erred in many ways, this "free
press" of ours.
I know now that the only
real crime of Francis Parker Yockey was to write a book, and for this he had to
It is always impossible, of
course, to come to grips with the essence of greatness. There are known
facts of a great life, but facts are dead and almost mute when we seek the
essential reality of a creative personality. But let us review some of the
facts we know of a life which is at once significant, fascinating and tragic.
Francis Parker Yockey was
born in Chicago in 1917. He attended American universities, taking a B.A. degree
in 1938 and, three years later, a degree in law from Notre Dame, where he was
graduated cum laude.
From earliest childhood,
Yockey was recognized for his prodigious abilities, and resented for them by
many. History may reveal that the combination of originality and high
intelligence in rare individuals is essential for human progress, but we mortals
find these qualities more admired in biographies than in classmates, friends and
Yockey was a concert-level
pianist; he was a gifted writer. He studied languages and became a linguist. As
a lawyer, he never lost a case. He had an extraordinary grasp of the world of
finance -- and this is surprising, for we learn that in his philosophy economics
is relegated to a relatively unimportant position. And it is as the Philosopher
that Yockey reached the summit; it is this for which he will be remembered; he
was a man of incredible vision. Even so, his personality was spiced by the
precious gift of a sense of humor.
Like the great majority of
Americans, Yockey opposed American intervention in the Second World War.
Nevertheless, he joined the army and served until 1942 when he received a
medical discharge (honorable). The next few years were spent in the practice of
law, first in Illinois and subsequently in Detroit, where he was appointed
Assistant County Attorney for Wayne County, Michigan.
In 1946, Yockey was offered
a job with the war crimes tribunal and went to Europe. He was assigned to
Wiesbaden, where the "second string" Nazis were lined up for trial and
punishment. The Europe of 1946 was a war-ravaged continent, not the prosperous
land we know today. Viewing the carnage, and seeing with his own eyes the
visible effects of the unspeakable Morgenthau Plan which had as its purpose the
starvation of 30 million Germans, and which was being put into effect at that
time, he no doubt found ample reinforcement for his conviction that American
involvement in the war had been a ghastly mistake. And feeling the might of the
sinister power in the East, he might well have wondered whose interests were
being served by such a "victory."
As Senator Robert A. Taft
and many other responsible and thinking men of the day who had the courage to
state their convictions, Yockey concluded that the entire procedure of the
"war crimes trials" was serving the interests -- and was meant to
serve the interests -- of international communism The use of torture,
doctored evidence and ex-post-facto law before a court which was judge,
jury, prosecutor and defense were merely part of the preposterous juridical
aspects. Of even more importance was the reversion to barbarism which was
inherent in the spectacle -- a reversion so pointedly explored later by
Britisher F. J. P. Veale in Advance to Barbarism.
For eleven months, Yockey's
duty in Wiesbaden was to prepare reports on the various cases. Having a long
view of history, he tried to do an objective job. Finally, in Washington,
someone complained, and his superior called him on the carpet. "We don't
want this type of report," he was told. "This has entirely the wrong
slant. You'll have to rewrite these reports to conform with the official
Yockey felt that the time
had come to take a stand, even if it meant to break with conformity and plunge
into the lonely waters of social ostracism. "I am a lawyer, not a
journalist," he said, "you'll have to write your own propaganda";
and he quit on the spot.
After Wiesbaden, he returned
to America for five months. But following this taste of weltpolitik he
was unable to settle down. He could not ignore an insistent feeling that he must
immolate himself in the flames of controversy. And this conviction so destroyed
his peace of mind that he knew he had no choice.
It was late 1947 when Yockey
returned to Europe. He sought out a quiet inn at Brittas Bay, Ireland. Isolated,
he struggled to begin. Finally, he started to write, and in six months --
working entirely without notes -- Francis Parker Yockey completed Imperium.
The formidable task of
publishing it was the next step. Here, also, Yockey ran into serious problems,
for no publisher would touch the book, it being too "controversial."
Hungry publishers of our advanced day know that any pile of trash, filth, sex,
sadism, perversion and sickness will sell when wrapped between two gaudy covers
and called a book, but under no circumstances may they allow readers to come
into contact with a serious work unless it contains the standard obeisances to
the catchwords of equality, democracy and universal brotherhood.
Finally, however, Yockey was
able to secure the necessary financing, and production began.
The first edition of Imperium
was issued in two volumes. Volume I has 405 pages and three chapters. Volume II
has 280 pages and also three chapters. Both were published in 1948 in the name
of Westropa Press. Volume I was printed by C. A. Brooks & Co., Ltd. and
Volume II by Jones & Dale -- both of London. Both volumes measure 5 x 71/4
inches in dimensions and have a red dust jacket with the title in black script
on a white field. The cover of Volume I is tan and that of Volume II is black.
It is known that 1000 copies
of Volume I, but only 200 copies of Volume II, were finished. The discrepancy in
quantity and the change in printers point to the difficulty in financing the
job. Copies of the first edition are, of course, virtually unobtainable today.
The rarest combination in
man is that of the philosopher and man of action. When Yockey tried his hand at
political organization he proved that he was no exception to the rule -- or was
it that the times then were too out of joint with the future for a constructive
movement to be started? Organizing the European Liberation Front in 1949, he and
friends issued a manifesto called The Proclamation of London. But outside
of getting beaten up in Hyde Park, nothing much happened. And here again he
encountered the old trouble. Even among the forward-looking intellectuals and
individualists who were his co-workers, his brilliance shone through. He was
resented, and the effort soon collapsed.
His money and immediate
hopes gone, Yockey procured a job with the Red Cross. He resigned in 1951 and
travelled throughout Europe.
In 1952 the State Department
refused to renew his passport. Repeatedly, he applied; each time he was
rejected. A game then developed between the FBI and Yockey, for the FBI had
received orders to keep him under surveillance at all times. This is a pattern
which has since become obvious to vigorous anti-communists in all parts of the
United States, especially in the South. When Yockey's whereabouts was known, the
FBI would watch him night and day. When he dropped temporarily from sight, as he
did frequently, his friends and relatives and contacts were constantly
interrogated by agents who -- they kept repeating -- "just want to talk to
And this was undoubtedly the
truth. This is all they wanted to do. They just wanted to know where he was,
what he was doing, whom he was seeing, what he was saying and where he was going
Why, you ask? Why all the
interest in Francis Parker Yockey, author? He himself gave the answer to a
friend. "My enemies have evaluated me better than my friends," he
said, and it was true.
And as I peered through the
thick screens in the San Francisco Jail, and made out the indefinite shape on
the other side, that tenth day of June, 1960, I knew that I would have to help
the prisoner as best I could. I could do nothing else.
I have read your book, I
said to the shadow, and I want to help you. What can I do?
Wait, he said. Wait, and do
as your conscience tells you.
The following week was full
of news of Yockey s appearance before Rabbi Joseph Karesh, the U.S.
Twice, I attended the
hearings, and each time was fascinated by this man, Yockey. In stature he was
about five feet, ten inches. He was light of weight, perhaps 145 pounds, and
quick on his feet. His hair was dark, and starting to grey. The expression on
his face -- pensive, sensitive, magnetic -- this was the unforgettable thing. It
was his eyes, I think. Dark, with a quick and knowing intelligence. His eyes
bespoke great secrets and knowledge and such terrible sadness. As he turned to
leave, one time, those eyes quickly searched the room, darting from face to face
with a sort of desperation, though the expression on his face of a determined
resignation never wavered. What was he looking for? In that lions den, what else
but a friendly countenance? As his gaze swept across, and then to me, he stopped
and for the space of a fractional second, spoke to me with his eyes. In that
instant we understood that I would not desert him.
Friday morning, June 17, I
arose as usual. I heard the radio announcer pronounce words that stunned me.
Yockey was dead.
"I'll sleep through
'til morning" was the cryptic message he gave his cellmate, last night. Was
the morning he anticipated the dawn of a new age?
A garbled note was found.
The coroner declared it suicide and said the poison was potassium cyanide. No
one knew where he had gotten it. The case was closed.
As Americans, we have been
taught from infancy to believe that we live in a free country. But times change,
and America has become transformed in many ways. Often, the old formalities are
observed, but the meaning and inner reality of America has changed, and no one
saw this more clearly than Francis Parker Yockey. How the press, for example,
loves to brag to its victims -- its readers -- about its freedom. Yes, the press
may be free to lie and distort and suppress and deceive and malign, but is it
free to tell the truth?
The spectacle of a man being
persecuted, framed and driven to his death simply because he wrote a book is not
one we would expect to see in the Twentieth Century in the land of the free and
the home of the brave.
But are we free when an
American citizen whose only crime was to write a book is denied a passport by
the State Department -- a privilege which is given to all but the most notorious
degenerates and criminals? It was not until April 24, 1962, that the State
Department finally got around to beginning hearings to deny passports to the
most important communists -- but the "free press somehow forgot to report
at the time that no report of a confidential nature from the FBI or any other
source would be used against a communist unless he was given the
"right" of confrontation with his accuser. And, of course, the right
of appeal would be scrupulously honored, even then.
Are we free when a citizen
can be arrested without a warrant and held in jail without charges, but with the
fantastic bail of $50,000 levied against him? Are we free when the vultures of
the "free press" can swoop down upon the victim to heap calumny and
scorn upon his head and accuse him of doing things he never did and saying
things he never said in an effort to build up "public opinion" against
him? Is America a free country when a sensitive genius can be held in the
filthiest of jails with Negro and White criminals and is denied even clean
clothes and a bath? Are we free when such a "criminal" is not allowed
to see his sisters in private, and when a group which has supposedly been set up
to defend the constitutional rights of citizens -- the American Civil Liberties
Union -- would rather defend the "rights" of homosexuals, traitors,
murderers and pornographers than a sincere patriot like Francis Parker Yockey,
whose every thought and effort was in behalf of his fellow man? Are we free, I
ask, when a judge can rule that a prisoner is not to have a "speedy and
public trial by an impartial jury . . ," as guaranteed in the Bill of
Rights, but, instead, must have a mental examination for the obvious purpose of
eliminating a jury trial altogether? And finally, are we free when another group
-- vastly more powerful than the ACLU or the government itself -- so powerful,
indeed, that men dare not speak its name above a whisper, unless in terms of the
most groveling praise -- are we free when this group is able to dictate to the
government the exact procedure which is to be used in disposing of troublemakers
like Francis Parker Yockey?
If such things as I have enumerated can happen -- and they did
-- then our vaunted "freedom" is a fake thing; an empty word given to
us by our watchful masters to keep us amused and quiet -- as a parent gives a
shiny bauble to a child.
It is enlightening to review
the standard means whereby our masters combat positive ideas and movements.
There is a pattern in such tactics which constructive forces will do well to
study. The first tactic is suppression and determined non-recognition of the
rebel and his works. The press will unanimously give the well known "silent
treatment." Even at this early stage, if the movement gives promise of
becoming significant, assassination is considered and carried out if possible.
The murder of young Newton Armstrong, Jr., in San Diego, on the night of March
31, 1962, is a case in point. Quoting from Che Guevara's s book on guerilla
warfare and the question of when to resort to assassination:
It is generally against
the policy of the Communist Party to resort to assassination ... However, it
requires two criteria and a high-level policy decision ... The criteria for the
individual in question are that he must be highly effective and it must serve
some sort of example -- some sort of a highly effective example.
The next tactic is the Smear
through libel, distortion, misrepresentation and the sowing of confusion
wherever possible.This may be a negative smear with the purpose of destroying
the effectiveness of an enemy or a positive smear for the purpose of building a
haze around the truth to enable a disintegrative movement to develop. The
falsification of the truth about Castro which was indulged in by virtually all
of the press and, of course, the State Department, is a classic example of this.
The Smear is usually started as an underground whispering campaign that
viciously builds up to an outright and overt campaign, with the "free
press" called into play. The object is to isolate enemies of the present
regime and discredit them. The third tactic is infiltration into the movement
and/or the building up of false leadership in order to sabotage the movement at
the optimum time, meanwhile diverting patriot energies into harmless or
controlled activities. The fourth and final stage is called upon only as a last
resort, after the movement or philosophy has become institutionalized and is
immune to grosser tactics. This is to "interpret" it so as to bring it
as closely as possible into conformity with approved patterns.
(Characteristically, the conflicting philosophies of both Jesus Christ and
Friedrich Nietzsche have suffered this deadening interpretation.) Two or more of
the above maneuvers are usually used simultaneously. For instance, in addition
to the suppression of his Imperium, Yockey was also victimized by the
Smear; and he was also in danger of assassination -- and his enigmatic end
settled the problem. Now it is with no gift of prophecy that one may predict
that this present republication of his work will call forth the same sequence.
I tell you that the
injustice of it all is enough to drive one mad. How can a man stomach the
cynical or ignorant drivel of the liberals as they whine for "freedom of
speech" and "right to dissent" and shake their bony fists at
"conformity" and all the rest of their legerdemain when one knows that
these moral cripples and ethical perverts demand their peculiar freedoms only
for those who are working to destroy the West? We have seen their reaction when
one committed to saving the West is in need of some of their medicine.
It was like a certain wise,
old reporter whispered to one of Yockey's sisters as she slumped tearfully and
quietly in her solitude. "Your brother is a martyr -- the first of a long
line of them -- if we are to take back our country from those who have stolen it
A surprising word on the
Yockey affair came some weeks after his death, and was provided by the
tight-lipped silence of the man who had been charged with railroading him to the
insane asylum, the United States Attorney. Suddenly, inexplicably, he resigned
his job, left his wife and children and joined a monastery.
Let us assume that at least
one devoted servant of the Democracy has a conscience, even if displayed a
Please allow me to expose to
you my prejudice so that there will be no misunderstanding. I favor the
survival of our Western cultural organism. I love those who fight for the
integrity of the West, whoever they may be. And, as much as I fear and mistrust
the outer enemies of the West, I despise our inner enemies and the cowards who
support them far more -- and I hate their putrid doctrine that calls our
continuing degradation "inevitable."
Further, I believe that the
West can survive. It all hinges on faith: faith in our future;
faith in our superiority and survival. Skepticism, sophistication,
cosmopolitanism, cynicism has destroyed the old faith, and it has not been
replaced by a new one. But faith is and will always remain the essential
ingredient in every historical force. Only a unifying faith can provide the
common motivation for survival -- the just and deep conviction of our right to
live -- and spark the single-minded and intolerant power which can clean and
redeem our fast-decaying, rotting milieu. Very simply: the imperative of
inspiring that faith is the central problem of our time.
And when I say,
"survive," I mean nothing more. For we are so far gone; our
philosophies, liberties and cultural patterns are so perverted or eroded that
bare survival is all that is possible. I mean to say that those who are to save
the West must realize at the outset that only part of it can be saved; that much
must be sacrificed and that the resulting structure will be different from the
past. Those who have gone before have allowed the dank "winds of
change" to corrode the old life, and many weeds have sprung up which cannot
entirely be eliminated. It is one thing to fight for an attainable ideal, but
another to sacrifice for a lost cause. In determining what is attainable and
what is forever lost a philosophy of history is needed.
And although our job is to rebuild
we must not lose sight of the reality, for we cannot rebuild until we have captured.
Political power is the essential criterion, not wishes or windbags, and to the
goal of political power all else must be temporarily sacrificed. To say less is
to insure defeat. He who is on board a sinking ship in a storm may be required
to throw all his possessions overboard if this is necessary for common survival.
Or, to use another image:
Those who would guide the
West back across the Styx and out of the dark must travel first through the
gates of Hell.
The practical problem of the
recapture of political power divides itself into other questions. For one, is it
possible to formulate an ethic and faith which, in itself, offers at least as
much popular attractiveness as the painted lie of Marx? For another, how can
those who would naturally lead such a movement compete with the highly-developed
Leninistic operational diabolism in the perpetually savage and untamable jungle
of political warfare -- or is it necessary to do so? After all, the conspiracy
we face is the hideous monster spawned of four millenniums of experience in
guile and deception; so much so, in fact, that its main ally always has been the
obtuse blindness of those on whom it feeds. "Struggle" to a man of the
West means bullets, armies, and aircraft carriers. But to our enemy,
international wars are of little meaning; "struggle" to him means not
war but politics, and accordingly he has perfected his weapons in this most
decisive of areas. Soldiers have never made good politicians, and, by the nature
of their respective crafts, the soldier must always lose to the man of politics.
Finally comes the main
consideration in formulating such a doctrine: will it certainly eradicate the
politico-social evils and diseases of our day and lead mankind toward a better
It is by this standard and
no other that you will, if you are wise, judge the work of Francis Parker Yockey.
To quit the search for such
an ethic is to abandon history like the intellectual and spiritual nihilists --
the liberals and beatniks. To quit the search is to turn over to the inner enemy
carte blanche control over our lives, souls and fate.
The failure to provide this
philosophy is not alone the fault of the saprophytes among us, however. Nor is
it only the fault of the chameleon-like inner enemy of the West (the Culture
Distorter; to use Yockey's apt term) which mercilessly persecutes and smashes
all who dare to cry out against our rapid decline and degeneration; in all
truth, it is mainly the fault of the many thousands who fully know the issues at
stake yet have not the moral courage to identify and light the Culture
Distorter; or -- worse yet -- who have, by diligent self-persuasion, convinced
themselves that the battle for survival against an enemy that demands nothing
less than total surrender can be fought and won with tax-deductible
corporations, measured, "moderate" words and avoidance of
"extremists." These dainty combatants swarm over every anti-communist
movement like ants on sugar. By shrilly demonstrating their anti-communism they
bribe their consciences to give them peace and often go so far as to join in the
crucifixion of those few with moral courage lest they, too, be adjudged
"guilty" by association. America has too many of such anti-communists
and too few real patriots.
There is much in Imperium
which can be easily misinterpreted. There is something for everyone to agree
with. And there is something for everyone to disagree with. This is a
distinguishing characteristic of every truly vital and revolutionary departure.
Yockey's criticism of
Darwinism is an example of the first possibility, and it should be borne in mind
that he is speaking of journalistic Darwinism, not the theory of
evolution. A related point is his usage of the word, race. It would have
added to clarity if another word, such as nobility, was used to describe
those who feel the Imperative of the Age, for the genetic interpretation of race
is a necessary, useful and valid one if we are to see all of our problems
clearly and accurately. Also, Yockey cites some tests of doubtful validity when
he asserts that children of immigrants into America are quite different in
anthropological measurements than their parents. There is no doubt some truth to
this; there are bodily differences caused by food and climate, but such
conclusions can be carried into the realm of Lysenkoism unless great caution is
used. Troyfim Lysenko is the Russian communist quack and high priest who
"proved" through his hocus-pocus that environment and not heredity
creates the man. Such a theory is the basic fallacy upon which the entire
communist theory of man rests, though few people realize this. But heredity is a
matter of genes and genes never change except through mutation unless genes of
one type (race) are mixed with genes of another type (race). One of the best
books on the subject to appear recently is Dr. Conway Zirkle's Evolution,
Marxian Biology and the Social Scene. Evolution, biology and genetic
inheritance must be treated as matters of life-facts, and any theory for the
future has to accept them.
Yockey's usage of the word authority
may be a source of misinterpretation. It should be remembered that the
individual enjoyed far more liberty in Europe under the monarchs than in
America, today. Doubters should familiarize themselves with Edmund Burke, Thomas
Carlyle, Herbert Spencer, and the more recent work of Otto von Habsburg, The
Social Order of Tomorrow. It is sure that by the use of this word, he does
not mean Marxist-type collectivization.
Some readers have raised the
question of Yockey's apparent anti-Russianism, and a clarifying word is
necessary here. In later writings, Yockey made his views on Russia more clear;
in fact, certain of his captors called him "anti-American and
pro-Russian," during his San Francisco ordeal. Although this libel was of
course vomited for the benefit of gullible newspaper readers, it shows that some
of his later writings could have been misinterpreted as being pro-Russian, just
as Imperium indicates an anti-Russian attitude. Of course, Yockey was
neither pro- nor anti-Russian; he was concerned with the health and continuity
of the West, and his view of the rest of the world was at all times subjective
to what he considered in the best interests of the West at that time.
"anti-Semitism," unless the imprecation is meant as simply having an
open mind on the Jewish question, should be interpreted on the same level. The
fact that he was captured in the home of a Jewish friend -- even though that
friend subsequently repudiated him -- is instructive to the truth here.
Comment could be made on
dozens of the brilliant thoughts and concepts presented in Imperium, such
as, for one example, his relegating economics to its proper level --
organically, the alimentary tract. His advocacy of European unification, long
before this idea had gained any headway, is another case in point. This is
perhaps a proof of his assertion that things that are considered "extreme
today are the dogmas of tomorrow; the genius lives in the future, as he says,
and whereas he used to be considered merely a little "odd" by his
contemporaries, and avoided or tolerantly humored (unless, that is, he incurred
the righteous wrath of the Church, in which case things could be made very hot
for him) he is today declared by modern Freudianism to be mentally ill and unfit
for the ancient protections of law; and this is surely indicative of the
"progress" we have made in a thousand years.
The significance of the
pseudonym Yockey chose as author of Imperium, Ulick Varange, should be
noted. Ulick is an Irish given name, derived from Danish, and means "reward
of the mind." Varange, of course, refers to the Varangians, that far-roving
band of Norse heroes led by Rurik who, upon invitation from the Slavs, came to
civilize Russia in the 9th Century, built the Russian Imperial State and formed
the gifted and handsome Russian aristocracy until they were butchered by the
Bolsheviks -- along with some 20 million other Christians and Moslems -- in that
bloody terror. The name, therefore, drawn as it is from the Eastern and Western
antipodes of Europe, signifies a Europe united "from the rocky promontories
of Galway to the Urals," as he, himself, exhorts. Finally, the surname,
Varange, by itself signifies the Western origin of historic Russia.
is -- again as the author says -- not a book in the sense that it presents argument.
It is prophetic, the work of an intuitive seer. You will find no
bibliography or footnotes in Imperium for this reason in spite of the
vast reading that the author has obviously done. And it is prophetic not only in
the large historical sense, for could Yockey have been thinking of himself and
predicting his own violent end when he stresses that the prophets of a new age
often come to unnatural deaths? Twice this thought is brought out -- once in the
chapter THE ARTICULATION OF A CULTURE, and again, GENIUS.
Another interesting and
mysterious fad about the manuscript he completed at Brittas Bay and that you now
hold in your hand is that it is "keyed" so that, if the secret code
can be discovered, the author's name is spelled. Thus, the question of
authenticity which is always raised about a great work after the author dies
cannot ever be a problem with Imperium.
It is important to seek the
origins of Yockey's philosophy, for all are compelled to build on the backs of
those who have gone before and to see the past clearly is to understand more
fully. With more exaggeration than accuracy, Yockey states, "There is
nothing original in the content of this book."
A grounding in Oswald
Spengler is fundamental to understanding Yockey; in fact, it can be said that Imperium
is really a sequel to Spengler's monumental The Decline of the West.
Spengler, of course, is persona non grata to prevailing
"intellects" for reasons that become very clear to any reader of Decline,
so this revival of his influence -- an inevitable revival, I'll add -- will be a
great shock to the tender minds of the beatniks, liberals and communists who
have sucked at the dry pap of historical conformity for so long. These
intellectual infants are always very eager to assure us that Spengler is
"repudiated," a favorite semantic weapon of theirs, used regularly
whenever they wish to avoid discussing issues and facts.
But Oswald Spengler -- "the philosopher of the Twentieth Century, as Yockey
calls him -- along with Gregor Mendel, Thomas Malthus and Charles Darwin -- has
shown us the pattern of the world of yesterday and the outline of it in the
future, for better or for worse. Each of these giants is primary in his own
field of study, and to study history while rejecting Spengler is quite as
foolish as studying disease and rejecting the germ theory, or studying
mathematics and rejecting numbers. The pathetic intellectual nihilists,
materialists, equalists and do-gooders may yap, yap at the heels of Spengler
until they are hoarse, but History cannot hear them.
"In this book is
attempted for the first time the venture of predetermining history..."
Spengler opens Decline, and follows it with two thick volumes of
delightful and profound excursions into world history, war, philosophy, poetry,
music, art, politics, religion, even mathematics.
Perhaps the best synopsis of
Spengler -- if there can be such a thing -- has been done by Egon Friedell in
his A Cultural History of the Modern Age, a three-volume work of which,
incidentally, Yockey was very fond. Says Friedell in listing significant
Lastly, and with deep
admiration, we come to the name of Oswald Spengler, perhaps the most powerful
and vivid thinker to appear on German soil since Nietzsche. One has to climb
very high in the world's literature to find works of such scintillating and
exuberant intellect, such triumphant psychological vision and such a personal
and suggestive, rhythmic cadence as his Decline of the West. What
Spengler gives us in his two volumes is the "outlines of a morphology of
history." He sees, in place of the "monotonous picture of linear
world-history" the "phenomenon of a plurality of mighty
Cultures." "Each Culture has its own new possibilities of
self-expression, which arise, ripen, decay and never return. There is not one
sculpture, one painting, one mathematic, one physics, but
many, each in its deepest essence different from the others, each limited in
duration and self-contained, just as each species of plant has its peculiar
blossom or fruit, its special type of growth and decline. These Cultures,
sublimated life-essences, grow with the same superb aimlessness as the flowers
of the field." Cultures are organisms, and cultural history is their
biography. Spengler establishes nine such Cultures, the Babylonian, the
Egyptian, the Indian, the Chinese, the Classical, the Arabian, the Mexican, the
Western and the Russian, and he throws light upon each in turn, naturally not an
equally bright and full light in every case, as, of course, our information
concerning them is very unequal. But in the evolutionary course of these
Cultures certain parallelisms rule, and this leads Spengler to introduce the
conception of "contemporary" phenomena, by which he understands
historical facts that, "each in its own Culture, occur in the same --
relative -- positions and, therefore, have an exactly corresponding
significance." "Contemporary," for example, are the rise of the
Ionic and that of the Baroque; Polygnotus and Rembrandt, Polycletus and Bach,
Socrates and Voltaire are "contemporaries." But within the individual
Culture itself, too, there is naturally complete congruence of all its
life-expressions at each of its stages of evolution. So, for instance, there is
a deep connection of form between the Classical Polis and the Euclidean
geometry, between the space-perspective of the Western oil-painting and the
conquest of space by railways, telephones, and long-range weapons. By means of
these and like guiding principles, now Spengler arrives at the most interesting
and surprising discoveries. The "Protestant brown" of the Dutch and
the atheistic plein air of the Manet school, the "Way" as prime
symbol of the Egyptian Soul, and the "Plain" as the leitmotiv of the
Russian world-outlook, the "Magian" Culture of the Arabs and the
"Faustian" Culture of the West, the "second religiousness"
in which late Cultures revive the images of their youth, and the "fellahdom"
in which man becomes again historyless -- these, and many more like them, are
unforgettable glimpses of genius that light up for a moment vast tracts of
night, incomparable discoveries and hints of an intellect that possesses a truly
creative eye for analogies. That the Cimmerians of learning have opposed to such
a work nothing but stolidity and a deaf incomprehension of what his questions
and answers are about is not surprising to anyone who knows the customs and
mentality of the republic of scholarship.
Spengler published Decline
in July, 1918, and we are still being washed in the very first breakwaters of
that titanic event. For The Decline of the West was fully as
revolutionary to the study of history in 1918 as Copernicus theory of
heliocentricity was to the study of astronomy in 1543.
What, we may ask, is the
main cause of resistance to accepting Spengler aside from the fact that he is a
massive roadblock to the total victory of the marxist-liberal
"intellectual"? The main difficulties, I think, are two: the necessity
of acknowledging the essentially alien nature of every cultural soul, and the
apparent necessity to reconcile ourselves to the dismal fact that our own
Western organism must, too, die as have all those which have passed before.
fundamental problem of the second difficulty lies in the very Faustian Soul of
the West which Spengler himself defined: "The Faustian Soul -- whose
prime symbol is pure and limitless space," he said; and it is true, for
we need, in our innermost being, the perpetual reach to infinity. The idea of
unlimited progress flows from this spiritual reality; this is a concept
which is deeply and inextricably imbedded in every man of the West. Thus, the
thought of inevitable death draws a fundamental rejection and is called
As for the first specific
difficulty, the acknowledgment of the essentially alien nature of each cultural
soul, it follows that if every culture has its own inner vitality, it will be
uninfluenced by the spirit of any other. This also runs against the very deepest
grain of Western man who, for five hundred years and more, has been proselyting
men all over the world in the vain hope of making them over into his own beloved
This psychological block
runs deep in the West -- so deep that it is an error which is apparent in all
philosophical strata, certainly not only the leftist variety. Name any
philosopher, economist or religious adept of Western history, except Hegel *1
(yes, even including Spengler) and you are virtually certain to find a man who
sought to lay universal laws of human behavior; who, in other words, saw
no essential difference between races. This error is so fundamental it is
usually unconscious. (What would Lord Keynes, for example, do with his
"universal" theory of oversaving if he were to try to apply it
to Ghana or Haiti?) The Roman Catholic Church is a case in point.
Tradition-minded Westerners rightly speak of the Church as being a bulwark of
the West, but sometimes go so far as to identify the Church as the West.
Unfortunately, the compliment is not returned. The Holy Roman Church is a universal
Church -- one Church for all men -- which sees all people, wherever they are and
whoever they be, as equal human souls whose bodies are to be brought to the holy
embrace of Vatican City. It is the first to reject the impious suggestion that
it owes a primary loyalty to the West. Scientific and philosophical
demonstrations that men and cultures are, nevertheless, different in many
fundamental respects and that it is unhealthy -- unethical -- to mix them
are sure to meet with the same inhospitable reception that the Church earlier
gave to Copernicus and Galileo. In April of 1962 three Catholics in New Orleans
were excommunicated for daring to stand on this heretical Verity.*2
A central point when
thinking about this subject is the growth and now the total supremacy of the
Western idea of technics. The entire world of science is a reflection of Western
man and no other, and we have seen Western technics conquer the world. We see
our science being appropriated to varying degrees and in varying manners by
every simian Culture on the planet which has advanced beyond the arboreal stage.
The stone age Negro denizens of Africa, Haiti, New Guinea and the southern
Philippines are fascinated by clocks, radios and even sails. When an American
city wants to get rid of its old street cars, it sells them to Amerindian
Mexico. The Semitic Arabs ride their Cadillacs and use rifles made in Belgium;
both of which are bought with the gold of oil royalties from Wall Street, Dallas
or London. The Oriental Chinese have learned well, and are expected to explode
an atomic bomb at any moment. And even the half-Western Russians, from the days
of Peter the Great, or even Rurik, have constructed their ships, cannon and
rockets with European engineers. But does this mass appropriation of Western
technics have the slightest effect on the inner and distinctive soul of the
culture which appropriates? The answer is no, and we should not allow our
foolish pride to think otherwise.
The other cause of rejecting
Spengler lies in the difficulty of reconciling ourselves to the apparent
necessity of the death of the West as a cultural organism.
But it is not necessary, in
my opinion, to make this reconciliation. For although a Culture is an organism,
it is a peculiar one; and, by accepting the analogy in the first place, we are
able to intelligently seek for the possibility of extending or renewing its
Yockey rejects this
hypothesis and, as a thorough Spenglerian, foresees the end of the West. But it
can be argued that the very introduction of the organic concept into historical
philosophizing and theorizing plus the unparalleled mastery over Nature which
the West has attained -- and the infinite possibilities of this for the future
-- hold out the conception that the organism of the West need not suffer the
same Destiny as cultures which have gone before and which had none of this
knowledge. In other words, we now have the proper concept, thanks
to Spengler, and have, for the first time in all history, identified the
pathology of Culture, thanks to Yockey. And, in addition, Western technics have
created the equally unique physical means to apply to the problem.
To carry this examination further, the Western Culture excels all others in
history in these areas:
(1) The obsession with fact-history.
(2) The development of the organic concept of Culture, and recognition of its
(3) The development of science and master technics. Nearing-subjection of the
microcosm and time, and the macrocosm and space.
Let us now turn to the
so-far final and, according to Spengler, the "inevitable" phase of a
Culture -- the imperialistic. First of all, it is in this area that the
Spenglerian theory, as applied to "the venture of predetermining
history," appears to falter because the West appears to be behind on the
timetable. Yockey comments on this and attributes it to the retarding influence
of Money. This is probably true. The question is, if Money can disturb the
cycle, cannot other things, too?
Here may be mentioned
another unique fact as regards the Western situation. The condition of
overproduction has become a fact of life that almost all sectors of political
opinion are loath to recognize. Nevertheless, this is a fundamental departure
for men, with widespread implications. Until now, slavery was necessary to
support a high standard of living. (And, of course, slavery has always been
sanctioned by religion and law when it is economically desirable.) So were
foreign conquests for exploitation. This is no longer the case. The main
economic problem for the West is to dispose of its surplus production, not to
feed and clothe its masses. (This elemental truth is known by every so-called
"laboring man" but it has escaped the notice of theorists and
economists of both Right and Left.) Overproduction and technics, then, appear to
have destroyed the economic imperative for imperialism. Finally, the atomic bomb
and its far more terroristic descendants have infinitely diminished the use of
war as an instrument of national policy. From these points of view, imperialism
as a policy of gain is as dead as the slave trade and the battleship. And if
imperialism is not to be undertaken as a deliberate policy of gain, from what
standpoint is it to be undertaken? Religious fervor? Popular enthusiasm for
capitalism? No, the day of the Crusades is also past for the West. We shall not
see the West march to conquer the world in any other fashion but that of Wall
Street's and the Peace Corps' -- unless the need to dump our products finally
can be resolved only in "war, the coward's solution for the problems of
Now if one were to object
that the above considerations smack of the causal view of history -- against
which Yockey inveighs -- and assert that the final phase of our Culture is
subject to purely spiritual phenomena, I should be bold to suggest the
possibility of a miscalculation by Spengler which could have been based on a
misinterpretation of his own data and his own theory which, if seen in a
slightly different perspective, not only clears up the meaning of the theory in
the light of present developments, but also validates it completely. Space
permits only the barest of outlines here, at the risk of unintelligibility to
all but those initiated in the mysteries of Spenglerism.
Spengler's method was to
show the correlation of all aspects of the history of a cultural organism. As
the Friedell quotation earlier suggests, Spengler drew analogies between
apparently diverse elements within a Culture, all of which are given shape and
meaning by the zeitgeist (spirit of the age) which is the creation of the
cultural soul in its singular Destiny. Hence, in the search of the past he saw
as the culminating stage that which expresses itself spiritually as
universalism. In the realm of religion, it becomes a "second
religiosity," starting as a conglomeration of many sects and cults which no
one takes seriously but everyone concerns himself with. (This is what we have
today. It is called the "social gospel" and appears in a thousand
forms, profane as well as sacred. It is not true religion at all but cultism.)
Finally this anarchy stabilizes into the form of a generally-accepted and
genuine religion -- and we are about 200 years away from this. In the realm of
the economic, there is "big business" and the growing power of Money,
which, however, is finally broken by the force of politics. In art, the
zeitgeist expresses itself as the importation of exotic art forms, and inane
experimentation which has no significance whatsoever except as natural
degeneracy of the native form. Finally, in foreign outlook, there is
imperialism, military expansion.
We can plainly see all of
the above running true to form and right on schedule except for the latter. Why?
Simply because the subjection of technics to the service of the West and the
mastery of economics over the West has sublimated this stage of spiritual
universalism from militaristic imperialism to other forms of expansion. Verily,
never before has there been such an aggressive army of gun-shy expansionists and
pacifist imperialists. World government fanatics literally swarm over the West.
They and others staunchly support the United Nations -- an anachronism which
cannot possibly be effective toward its alleged purposes -- yet support for this
harmful fossil is a matter of personal morality with millions. The zeitgeist is
always reflected in definitions, so it is the height of insult for a White man
today to be labeled an "isolationist" or "nationalist."
White folks must all be "free traders," "internationalists"
and "cosmopolitan" in our outlook, and how we admire the "citizen
of the world," whatever that is. Our view is intently focused away from our
marches; it is far easier, we have discovered, to solve the problems of total
strangers than to solve our own. Non-Western peoples are not so enlightened as
we, and it is eagerly excused, utilizing a newly-discovered Christian double
standard which is a mark of modern moral superiority, like belonging to the
Classics Book Club or contributing to the Negro College Fund. What, asks
Nietzsche, has caused more suffering than the follies of the compassionate? It
is good for colored peoples to be nationalistic; we encourage it, in
fact, and snap up Israel Bonds with a warm feeling of self-righteousness. We are
joyful when colored peoples and Jews exhibit "race pride," the
cardinal sin and taboo of our own puritanical environment. (Incidentally, why is
it that every subject except one can be discussed in our enlightened age?
Atheism is now a dull subject. Marxism is even duller, after one hundred years
of popularity. A step further has taken us past plain sex to sadism and
perversion; the Marquis de Sade is even becoming jaded. What racy topic is left
to discuss since the equalists have brought democracy's blessings? Only one
thing cannot be discussed in polite company: race.)
The heroes of Wall Street
reap the most from this type of "imperialism," and today investors big
and little interest themselves in foreign investments which are actually given
tax advantages over domestic investments (Tax favoritism: the final criterion of
status in our democracy) -- or they support "foreign aid" --
remembering to stipulate, naturally, that a portion of this neat gimmick to
dispose of our surplus production be allotted to their own products. The
ultimate expression of this militant water-pistol imperialism is the hilarious
yet deeply symbolic "Peace Corpse," the true expression of the
zeitgeist. Created out of the typically American combination of abysmal do-good
stupidity and inability to gauge the feelings of others, and enlightened greed,
this is the perfect symbol for today.
No, we do not need
imperialism so long as we have leaders like Mennen Williams and Adlai Stevenson;
savants like Eleanor Roosevelt and Arnold Toynbee and altruists like Herbert
Lehman, James Warburg, and Douglas Dillon to solve our problems for us.
To further pursue this
inquiry into the applicability of Spengler today it is important to bring out a
certain point of view which is heard most infrequently, thanks to the purveyors
of intellectual freedom and democracy. Neo-Spenglerians who are attuned to the
racial view of history (call them "racists" for convenience) hold that
the "final" phase of a Culture -- the imperialistic stage -- is final
only because the cultural organism destroys its body and kills its soul by this
Obviously, if we are to draw
analogies between cultures and organisms we must agree that the soul of the
organism dies only because of the death of the body. The soul can sicken
-- the soul of the West is now diseased and perhaps mortally ill -- but it
cannot die unless the organism itself dies. And this, point out the racists, is
precisely what has happened to all previous cultures; death of the organism
being the natural result of the suicidal process of imperialism.
A word on the racial view of
history before proceeding further. Today, of course, history is written from the
marxist standpoint of economics, linear progress and class warfare -- and Yockey
explains this triple error well. Previous to the first World War history was
written largely from the racial point of view. History was seen as the dramatic
story of the movements, struggles and developments of races, which it is.
Suppression of the racist point of view reached its apex about 1960. (It is no
coincidence that the power of the Culture Distorter in every other field,
including the political, gave signs -- however faint -- of wavering at that
Perhaps the biggest reason
for a growing tendency of White folks to look at the races objectively is,
paradoxically, precisely because they have been forced to look at them
subjectively! It is no problem to maintain a myth in ignorance. Negro equality
or even supremacy, for example, is easier to believe in if there are no Negroes
around to destroy the concept. In a word, internationalism in practice quickly
metamorphoses into racism.
To turn from experience to
academic matters, how many Americans or Britons are acquainted with the
stupendously elemental fact that they are -- in the historical sense -- Germans;
that they are, like it or not, a part of that great Teutonic-Celtic family which
-- millenniums before the dawn of Rome or even Greece -- was one tribe, with one
language? How many otherwise enlightened and well-meaning people who have
heretofore judged their patriotism according to the degree of hatred they have
had for their continental brothers know that the ancestors of the great
Teutonic-Celtic family were the same Aryans who subjected India and civilized
it, speaking the Sanskrit language and creating the caste system which,
incidentally, was nothing originally but a system of racial segregation endowed
with a religious significance in order to maintain it? Or that, before this,
there were the Sumerians and the Persians, and that the modern name for Persia
-- Iran -- is merely a corruption of Aryan?
Greece and Rome, also, were
created by this great, far-roving, culture-bearing race of conquerors. In
whatever part of the world it went, a different civilization was created, each
of which was distinctive because it developed in tune with the environmental
conditions in whatever location its history began, yet bearing unmistakable
traces of its Aryan origin.
There are some civilizations
about which we know little, as far as the racial elements are concerned. All we
know for certain about the Egyptians is that they were Caucasian, and that they,
like all slavemasters, mingled their blood with that of their Negro slaves. As
for the so-called Amerindian civilizations, we now know without doubt that
civilization was superimposed upon Indian savages by a White racial stock. In
his popular books, Kon-Tiki and Aku-Aku, Thor Heyerdahl cleverly
reveals the forbidden racist view, in spite of the fact that a million people
who are familiar with the adventure described in the books are totally ignorant
of the deep racial message he wrote into them. (It is a sad commentary indeed
when a gifted scientist, in order to reveal a simple truth, must risk his life
and then write an adventure story in code which, when interpreted, shows a
In Kon-Tiki, Heyerdahl
writes, "... There is not a trace of gradual development in the
high civilizations which once stretched from Mexico to Peru. The deeper the
archeologists dig, the higher the culture, until a definite point is reached at
which the old civilizations have clearly arisen without any foundation in the
midst of primitive cultures." All of the wonders in South and Central
America before the arrival of the Spaniards had been brought about suddenly by a
race of White conquerors and that, as they melted their blood slowly into that
of their subject native population, the civilization dwindled. The very reason
Cortez conquered the Aztecs so easily was because Montezuma believed that the
Spaniards were the fair-skinned, bearded men coming from the East which,
Quetzalcotl' s prophecy foretold, would return; and the Incas in Peru had
the very same legend. The name, Inca, by the way, is the name only of the
aristocracy of the Peruvians. The Incas were White and the princesses were quite
beautiful; so much so that many of the Spanish officers married them and took
them back to Spain. A glance at the present ' Incas in Peru shows at once that
these were not the creators of the great Peruvian Culture.
Some of the very best
writing on this subject and, for that matter, on the fascinating subject of
world prehistory generally is found in Paul Hermann's Conquest By Man, an
extremely valuable book which, strangely enough, is now in print (Harper)!
An even cloudier origin must
be ascribed to the Chinese civilization. Suffice it to say that there is
abundant indication of early White movements to North China and there is much
similarity between early Chinese culture and Babylonian. Genghis Khan, a Mongol,
came from a tribe called 'the gray-eyed men," according to biographer
Harold Lamb, and he had red hair and green eyes. The Chinese have shown that
they have the ability to maintain a civilization but we cannot prove that they
have ever created one.
The intensive suppression,
misrepresentation, condemnation and opposition to the racial view of history has
had its effect. We still not only have much to learn (the surface of prehistory
has barely been scratched and will never be more than scratched if the
scientists persist in spending their time in well-financed projects in the
so-called "cradle of civilization" in the Middle Fast) but the results
of historical perversion have been satisfyingly abundant in the social area.
This has allowed the Distorter to convince Europe that all that Europe has it
owes to the Greeks, the Romans and an obscure tribe of vagabonds which some
religious crackpots refer to as "God s Chosen People." *3 In The
Testimony of the Spade, however, Geoffrey Bibby relates some results of his
straying off the beaten archeological track and looking for the origins of
Europe in Europe instead of the alien Orient; results which will be surprising
to persons brought up to believe that their ancestors were bearskin-clad
savages, civilized only when forced to acknowledge the superiority of Rome. In
truth, virtually everything the West has it owes to itself, including
holidays like Christmas and Easter (originally Teutonic celebrations of the
Winter Solstice and the coming of Spring, with the latter celebration dedicated
to the Goddess Eostre), to law, ethics and single-breasted jackets. The world
wears leather shoes and trousers, not sandals and togas. Wearing apparel very
similar to items sold at Sears, Roebuck today have been discovered in Europe
dating back some three thousand years.
The Western Culture had
its birth many millenniums ago. It began autochthonously and developed to the
present point, when it now stands upon the verge of physical and spiritual
annihilation only because it has ceased to believe in itself. This is the
lesson we glean.
Further, there is a
correlation too perfect to be a coincidence in that, in every case on record of
the death or stagnation of a Culture there has been simultaneously an abortive
attempt to digest large numbers of cultural and racial aliens into the organism.
In the case of Rome and Greece death came about through imperialism and the
resulting, inevitable backwash of conquered peoples and races into the heartland
as slaves, bringing exotic religions, different philosophies; in a word,
cultural sophistication first, then cultural anarchy. In the case of Persia,
India and the Amerindian civilizations, a race of conquerors superimposed their
civilization upon a mass of indigenous people; the area flourished for awhile,
then the Culture vanished or, in the case of America, was on the verge of
vanishing, as the descendants of the conquerors became soft, fat and liberal and
took on more and more of the accoutrements and blood of the subject population.
In the case of Egypt, the alien blood was brought in over the course of many
centuries by the importation of Negro slaves. The inevitable racial
mongrelization followed, creating the Egypt we know today.
We thus see the real reason
underlying the "inevitable" decline and destruction of a cultural
organism. It is because, at a certain stage, a Culture develops a bad case of
universalism. Speaking pathologically, unless this is sublimated to harmless
channels by proper treatment, it will inevitably kill the organism through the
absorption of a resulting flood of alien microbes.
It is, therefore, the
natural by-product of universalism which kills the organism; the death of the
organism itself is neither natural nor necessary!
This conclusion comes by a
synthesis of the Spenglerian and the racial point of view. Each tempers the
other; together a comprehensive and hopeful theory of history can be developed
which holds a deep meaning to Westerners of this day. At all costs, the
imperialistic phase of our development must be avoided, and we must guard
against the digestion of alien matter we have already partially absorbed. The
West need not die if it learns to sublimate the present "universal"
stage of the West from the orthodox to something more constructive which will
not only satisfy the "inevitable" yearning that the West now displays
for expansion and universalism but, at the same time, will provide a basis for
the West to continue its development. What can that be?
Faintly shining above the
wreckage of seven Cultures we can now detect a dim ray of hope which gives to
us, as men of the West, reason to believe that the Destiny of our Culture can
work itself out through a completely new path. This ray of hope shines from the
same developments which have brought the West to its position of unqualified
superiority to every other Culture. For the West has already embarked upon the
greatest adventure in all history -- the attempt to conquer Space -- the
attempt to bring the very Universe under the control of the race! This
imperative needs no justification other than the one Sir Edmund Hillary gave
when he was asked why he wanted to climb Mount Everest: "Because it's
there." This is the pristine reality of the Faustian Soul of the West, and
it is beyond the logic of the rationalists.
Could any goal be at once so
totally challenging, so impudent and impossible as this -- and also so
metaphysically necessary to the spiritual need of our Culture? And more -- could
any goal be so perfectly adapted to the physical situation in which we find
The fates have provided the
West well with the means of survival. At this point in history, our technics,
industrial overproduction and the "population explosion" become
all-important, for we see that finally the West has the means to turn the poetic
imperative of the Faustian drive for the Infinite to reality; indeed, the
inescapable need to do so.
For it is true that,
regardless of all arguments to the contrary, Western man is bound to conquer
Space or to die in the attempt. No longer is the drive toward infinity and
largeness held back by earthly boundaries. Now, in fact, we have infinity at our
What I am suggesting is that
at last the White man has burst the ties to Earth. I am stating the simple fact
that, barring calamity caused by universal physical or biological destruction,
we are now headed for the stars, and there is no power in heaven or earth to
stop us. Coming days will see the present drive for Space magnified a
thousandfold -- a millionfold. All limits to the possibility of expansion have
disappeared. Geographical expansion on Earth is senseless -- and worse than
senseless -- it is suicide. The Frontier has come back -- a Frontier that can
never be dissipated. And with that Frontier comes literally limitless
opportunities not only for physical expansion but for economic exploitation --
and for the Soul of Faustian man to find its true expression.
Of course, man cannot
conquer the heavens. Man cannot move the solar system, change planets in their
orbits, add billions of square miles of dirt to the surface of the Earth, move
other planets closer to the life-giving Sun to adapt them for colonization,
refuel the Sun when it starts to fade and, most noble impossibility of all,
actually upgrade the human species through deliberate biological mechanics *4;
for, in the attempt to conquer Nature, we must fail; this is the eternal tragedy
of the Faustian Soul, says Spengler in Man and Technics. But -- and this
is the important thing -- we can try. And we will. The final end does not
matter; time has no end; only the goal matters.
At the same time there is
the grave danger that we will, with our attention fixed on the nearing stars,
succumb to the subtle urging of the Culture Distorter and ignore the problems at
home. The Infinite Challenge is of unspeakable excitement, but the mundane
problem of the quality of men and their earthy environment is of more
importance. Our venture to Infinity will be very short-lived if we come home to
an earth peopled with a rapidly-degenerating human species; to nights that crawl
with the prowlings of depraved, raceless savages, with only barred doors keeping
the jungle out of the laboratory and the boudoir until day breaks; to a tyranny
over our government that is exercised by organized and predatory minorities; to
impossible taxes to support degenerative "welfare" schemes that are
deliberately designed to proliferate the unfit and inferior at the expense of
the productive and creative; to an organized filth that calls itself literature;
to the ethical syphilis of Hollywood; to systematic lies that masquerade as
scholarship; to purposeful journalistic and official propaganda that has as its
sole aim the perpetuation of cultural decline; to thralldom to an economic
system dedicated to extirpating individual excellence and personal
responsibility; to a liberal philosophy and a sick religion -- perfect for
slaves -- which ferociously combats all creative efforts of noble souls,
revealing its own loftiest aspiration to be the implantation of a subconscious
death wish in our people; to a cowardly hypocrisy that makes it impossible to
speak of our real problems -- and all of this for the purpose of stabilizing the
total supremacy of the Culture Distorter, which feeds and fattens on these
Oswald Spengler, then, can
be seen not as the prophet of inevitable doom, but as a challenger, as a
seer who was -- in common with all great creators -- unable to see the final
consequences of his creation. Hence, the importance of Spengler becomes the size
of the future, and all men who are free from the grip of the destroyers must, as
a categorical imperative, accept his basic teaching. What we do with it --
whether or not we have the courage to build on the structure he built -- this is
up to us. We must hope that more men like Yockey will come to add a little more
onto the concept he created, for the development of the Western cultural
organism is not coming to an end, it is just beginning.
What is the significance of Imperium?
Simply this. That now, for the first time, those soldiers who enlist in the
service of the West have a profound theory to inspire and guide them. Imperium,
after conquering all attempts to suppress it and destroy it -- as have all
constructive advances in the past of man -- is seen as the only foundation which
can be used to overthrow the inner enemies, re-conquer the Soul of the West and
pave the way to the future.
In spite of the difference
of opinion which Imperium will stir, this much is certain: here is a book
which is basically different from other books, precisely as the author states on
the first page. Whether it does, indeed, signal a turning-point in history such
as the author describes, or not, it contains a vast amount of pregnant thinking
and new concepts which any fair-minded person will welcome. It breaks through
the straitjacket of present sterile intellectualism which affronts us from a
thousand futile towers of "higher learning" and will undoubtedly endow
every reader with possessions of thought which will enrich him and, in time, our
Culture. Whether the apocalyptic prophecies are borne out, or whether an
alternative and more constructive course can be imposed upon history -- or
whether the West and the world will come to its finality not with a bang but
with a whimper, only the unfoldment of time can tell; but no intelligent man
will ignore Imperium.
In one respect, Imperium
is akin to Das Kapital, for Karl Marx gave to the conspiratorial Culture
Distorter the necessary ideological mask to hide its mission of ruthless, total
destruction. He provided an ugly and invalid theory of man, cloaked in
putrifying equality, mewling hypocrisy, the disease of undiscriminating altruism
and the "science" of economics. By so doing, he thrilled the
rationalists with a totally specious verity, something their stunted, guilty
souls desperately needed after they killed God.
Francis Parker Yockey has
done the same thing for those who are constructive-minded and who have the
intellectual and moral courage to face reality and seek and speak truth.
This is why, although Yockey's plan for the West may not be perfect, it contains
atomic power. If only one man reading this book is influenced to lead, and if
others are made to see the world a little more clearly than they do now -- and
if they are thereby enabled to discriminate between their true friends and their
real enemies, and to recognize the need for leadership and coordinated action --
then Yockey's life of suffering and persecution and his monumental
accomplishment in spite of all has not been in vain.
And whatever course Destiny
may take from this day forth, I shall always be baffled by two questions.
For one, is the
republication of this book, in itself, concrete evidence that its prophecy is
being worked out?
And lastly -- now you must
accept this at my word and question me no further -- it is most strange that two
men -- neither of whom can bring themselves to believe in either
"Destiny" nor "Eternal Justice" -- that these two heathens
and bitter realists -- these two rationalists, if you will -- were the only ones
with faith enough to take it upon themselves to see that Imperium is not
forgotten but is made available for you, dear reader.
-- W. A. CARTO [sic]
Francis Parker Yockey
aka "Ulick Varange" The entire book on this web site!
On Propaganda in America
FRANCIS PARKER YOCKEY
Far more important to Europe
than the propaganda about domestic affairs in America is that about foreign
"democracy" is used also in this realm as the essence of reality. A
foreign development sought to be brought about is called "spreading
democracy"; a development sought to be hindered is "against
democracy," or "fascistic." "Fascism" is the numen
corresponding to evil in theology, and in fact they are directly equated in
The prime enemy in the
propaganda picture was always Europe, and especially the Prussian-European
spirit which rose with such self-evident force in the European Revolution of
1933 against the negative view of life, with its materialism, money-obsession,
and democratic corruption. The more surely it appeared that this Revolution was
not a superficial political phenomenon, a mere transfer of one party-regime for
another, that it was a deep spiritual, total revolution, of a new, vital
spirit against a dead spirit, the more violent became the hate propaganda
directed against Europe. By 1938, this propaganda had reached an intensity, both
in volume and in emotional frenzy, that could not be surpassed. Ceaselessly the
American was bombarded with the message that Europe was attacking everything
worth-while in the world, God." Religion," "democracy,"
"Freedom," "peace," America."
This excessive use of
abstractions was itself indicative that there was a lack of concrete realities
to use. The failure to arouse excitement, despite the propaganda bombardment,
led to the thesis that Europe was planning to invade the United States with
fleets and armies. Ideas like these indeed conquered the intellectual side of
the American mass-mind, but did not penetrate to the emotional level of rousing
genuine apprehension or effective hate. "Aggressor" was another leading
word in the intellectual assault. Again, it did not relate to facts, and was
only allowed to work one way as a term of abuse. "International
morality" was invented and formulated so that the enemy of the Culture-
distorter became ipso facto immoral. If they could not find political
reasons for their politics, they were all the more resourceful in creating
moral, ideological, economic, and esthetic reasons. Nations were divided into
good and bad. Europe as a whole was bad when it was united, and if Culture
distortion was able to secure a foothold in any European land, such land became
thereby good. The American propaganda machine reacted with venomous hatred
against the European partitioning of Bohemia in 1938. Every European power which
had participated in the negotiations was denounced as evil, aggressive, immoral,
anti-democratic, and the rest of it.
Fundamental in this
political picture was the thesis that politics was a matter of "forms of
government" struggling against one another. Not nations or States, but
abstractions like "democracy" and "fascism" were the content
of the world-struggle. This imposed the necessity of calling the opponent of the
momentary situation as "democratic" or "fascistic," and
changing it from month to month, year to year. Serbia, Poland, Japan, Russia,
China, Hungary, Rumania, and many other units, have been both
"fascist" and "democratic," depending upon precisely what
treaty they had made, and with what power.
The division into
"democratic" and "fascistic" corresponded exactly with that
into treaty-breaking and treaty- observing powers. Supplementing
it was the dichotomy: peace-loving nations, and -- the other kind. The phrase
"international law" was popularized, and it was used to describe
something which has never existed, and cannot exist. It had no connection
whatever with the real international law of 500 years of Western practice. It
was popularized to mean that any change in the international territorial status
quo was "forbidden" by "international law." Any words
whatever that had good connotations were linked with the leading catchwords of
the picture. Thus Western Civilization was too impressive to treat as a
hostile term, and it was used to describe parliamentarism, class-war,
plutocracy, and finally - Bolshevik Russia. It was insisted by the propaganda
machine during the time of the battle at Stalingrad in the Fall of 1942 between
Europe and Asia that the Asiatic forces represented Western Civilization while
the European armies were the enemies of Western Civilization. The fact that
Siberian, Turkestani, and Kirghizian regiments were being used by the Bolshevik
regime was adduced as proof that Asia had saved Western Civilization.
To Europeans, this sort of
thing testifies to two great facts: the total lack of any political or
cultural consciousness whatever in the masses of the American population, and
the deep, total, and implacable enmity toward Europe of the Culture-distorting
regime in America. Japan was also treated in the propaganda picture as an enemy,
but not as an irreconcilable enemy, like Europe. The propaganda against Japan
was never allowed to take a racial form, lest the racial instincts of the
American population be awakened into a storm that would sweep away the
distorter. The generally milder tone of the anti-Japanese propaganda was owing
to the fact that Japan had not experienced, and could not possibly experience,
anything like the great European Revolution of 1933.
Because of the primitive
intellectuality in a country whose population had been mentally uniformized,
this propaganda was able to adopt extremely crude expedients. Thus during the
war-preparation, 1933-1939, the press, cinema, and radio were filled with
stories of insults to the American flag abroad, of secret documents accidentally
discovered, of conversations heard over tapped wires, of discoveries of arms
caches in the possession of American nationalist groups, and the like.
"Newsreels" purporting to have been filmed abroad were actually made
in some cases in Hollywood. So fantastic did it all become that when, a year
before the Second World War, a wireless program carried an imaginative story of
an invasion from Mars, there were symptoms of widespread panic among the
Because America had never
come strongly under the impression of the Spanish cabinet-politics usages which
became engrafted on the European spirit, the Culture-distorting regime was able
to engage in propaganda attacks of an extremely repulsive and vile kind directed
against the private lives and characters of European leaders who represented the
20th century world-outlook. These leaders were represented as having been
panders, homosexuals, dope-fiends, and sadists. The propaganda was entirely free
from any cultural basis, and was completely cynical with regard to facts.
Precisely as the cinema-factories of Hollywood ground out lying plays and
"newsreels," the propagandists of the press created what
"facts" they needed. When the Japanese air forces attacked the
American naval base at Pearl Harbor in December, 1941, the Culture-distorters
did not know that Europe would take this occasion to retaliate against the
undeclared war which the Culture-distorting regime in Washington had been waging
against Europe. The regime therefore at once decided to exploit the Japanese
attack as a European military measure. To this end, the propaganda organs at
once spread the "news" that European planes with European pilots had
participated in the attack, and had even led it. Although every capital ship in
the base was sunk in this attack, the regime officially announced that only
slight damage had been done. These fact-creations were as nothing, however, to
the massive, post-war, "concentration-camp" propaganda of the
Culture-distorting regime based in Washington.
This propaganda announced
that 6,000,000 members of the Jewish Culture-Nation-State-Church-People-Race had
been killed in European camps, as well as an indeterminate number of other
people. The propaganda was on a world-wide scale, and was of a mendacity that
was perhaps adapted to a uniformized mass, but was simply disgusting to
discriminating Europeans. The propaganda was technically quite complete.
"Photographs" were supplied in millions of copies. Thousands of the
people who had been killed published accounts of their experiences in these
camps. Hundreds of thousands more made fortunes in post-war black-markets.
"Gas-chambers" that did not exist were photographed, and a "gasmobile"
was invented to titillate the mechanically-minded.
We come now to the purpose
of this propaganda which the regime gave to its mentally-enslaved masses. From
the analysis in the 20th Century Political Outlook, the purpose is seen to be
only one: it was designed to create a total war in the spiritual sense,
transcending the limits of politics, against the Western Civilization. The
American masses, both military and civilian, were given this mental poison in
order to inflame them to the point where they would carry out without flinching
the post-war annihilation-program. In particular: it was designed to support
a war after the Second World War, a war of looting, hanging, and
starvation against defenseless Europe.
article was excerpted from Imperium [pp 529-534], which is published by
The Noontide Press and available for purchase from the Institute for Historical
Reprinted from The Journal of Historical Review, vol. 10, no. 2, pp.
a most important by-product of Rationalism, and its origins and ideology must be
"Enlightenment" period of Western history which ... set in after the
Counter-Reformation laid more and more stress on intellect, reason and logic as
it developed. By the middle of the 18th century this tendency produced
Rationalism. Rationalism regarded all spiritual values as its objects and
proceeded to revalue them from the standpoint of "reason." Inorganic
logic is the faculty men have always used for solving problems of mathematics,
engineering, transportation, physics and in other non-valuing situations. Its
insistence on identity and rejection of contradiction are practicable in
material activity. They afford intellectual satisfaction also in matters of
purely abstract thought, like mathematics and logic, but if pursued far enough
they turn into mere techniques, simple assumptions whose only justification is
empirical. The end of Rationalism is Pragmatism, the suicide of Reason.
This adaptation of reason to
material problems causes all problems whatever to become mechanical when
surveyed in "the light of reason," without any mystical admixture of
thought or tendency whatever. Descartes reasoned the animals into automata, and
a generation or so later, man himself was rationalized into an automaton or
equally, an animal. Organisms became problems in chemistry and physics, and
superpersonal organism[s] simply no longer existed, for they are not amenable to
reason, not being visible or measurable. Newton provided the universe of stars
with a non-spiritual self-regulating force; the next century removed the spirit
from man, his history and his affairs.
Reason detests the
inexplicable, the mysterious, the half-light. In a practical problem in
machinery or ship-building one must feel that all the factors are under his
knowledge and control. There must be nothing unpredictable or out of control.
Rationalism, which is the feeling that everything is subject to and completely
explicable by Reason, consequently rejects everything not visible and
calculable. If a thing actually cannot be calculated, Reason merely says that
the factors are so numerous and complicated that in a purely practical way they
render the calculation unfeasible, but do not make it theoretically impossible.
Thus Reason also has its Will-to-Power: whatever does not submit is pronounced
recalcitrant, or is simply denied existence.
When it turned its gaze to
History, Rationalism saw the whole tendency as one toward Reason. Man was
"emerging" during all those millennia, he was progressing from
barbarism and fanaticism to enlightenment, from "superstition" to
"science," from violence to "reason," from dogma to
"criticism, from darkness to light. No more invisible things, no more
spirit, no more soul, no more God, no more Church and State. The two poles of
thought are "the individual" and "humanity." Anything
separating them is "irrational."
This branding of things as
irrational is in fact correct. Rationalism must mechanize everything, and
whatever cannot be mechanized is of necessity irrational. Thus the entirety of
History becomes irrational: its chronicles, its processes, its secret force,
Destiny. Rationalism itself, as a by-product of a certain stage in the
development of a High Culture, is also irrational. Why Rationalism follows one
spiritual phase, why it exercises its brief sway, why it vanishes once more into
religion these questions are historical, thus irrational.
Liberalism is Rationalism in
politics. It rejects the State as an organism, and can only see it as the result
of a contract between individuals. The purpose of Life has nothing to do with
States, for they have no independent existence. Thus the "happiness"
of "the individual" becomes the purpose of Life. Bentham made this as
coarse as it could be made in collectivizing it into "the greatest
happiness of the greatest number." If herding-animals could talk, they
would use this slogan against the wolves. To most humans, who are the mere
material of History, and not actors in it, "happiness" means economic
well being. Reason is quantitative, not qualitative, and thus makes the average
man into "Man." "Man" is a thing of food, clothing, shelter,
social and family life, and leisure. Politics sometimes demands sacrifice of
life for invisible things. This is against "happiness," and must not
be. Economics, however, is not against "happiness," but is almost
co-extensive with it. Religion and Church wish to interpret the whole of Life on
the basis of invisible things, and so militate against "happiness."
Social ethics, on the other hand, secure economic order, thus promote
Here Liberalism found its
two poles of thought: economics and ethics. They correspond to individual and
humanity. The ethics of course is purely social, materialistic; if older ethics
is retained, its former metaphysical foundation is forgotten, and it is
promulgated as a social, and not a religious, imperative. Ethics is necessary to
maintain the order necessary as a framework for economic activity. Within that
framework, however, "individual" must be "free." This is the
great cry of Liberalism, "freedom." Man is only himself, and is not
tied to anything except by choice. Thus "society" is the
"free" association of men and groups. The State, however, is
un-freedom, compulsion, violence. The Church is spiritual un-freedom.
All things in the political
domain were transvalued by Liberalism. War was transformed into either
competition, seen from the economic pole, or ideological difference, seen from
ethical pole. Instead of the mystical rhythmical alternation of war and peace,
it sees only the perpetual concurrence of competition or ideological contrast,
which in no case becomes hostile or bloody. The State becomes society or
humanity on the ethical side, a production and trade system on the economic
side. The will to accomplish a political aim is transformed into the making of a
program of "social ideals" on the ethical side, of calculation on the
economic side. Power becomes propaganda, ethically speaking, and regulation,
The purest expression of the
doctrine of Liberalism was probably that of Benjamin Constant. In 1814 he set
forth his views "progress" of "man." He looked upon the 18th
century Enlightenment with its intellectualistic-humanitarian cast as merely
preliminary to the true liberation, that of the 19th century. Economics,
industrialism, and technics represented the means of "freedom."
Rationalism was the natural ally of this trend. Feudalism, Reaction, War,
Violence, State, Politics, Authority all were overcome by the new idea,
supplanted by Reason, Economics, Freedom, Progress and Parliamentarism. War,
being violent and brutal, was unreasonable, and is replaced by Trade, which is
intelligent and civilized. War is condemned from every standpoint: economically
it is a loss even to the victor. The new war technics artillery made
personal heroism senseless, and thus the charm and glory of war departed with
its economic usefulness. In earlier times, war-peoples had subjugated
trading-peoples, but no longer. Now trading-peoples step out as the masters of
A moment's reflection shows
that Liberalism is entirely negative. It is not a formative force, but always
and only a disintegrating force. It wishes to depose the twin authorities of
Church and State, substituting for them economic freedom and social ethics. It
happens that organic realities do not permit of more than the two alternatives:
the organism can be true to itself, or it becomes sick and distorted, a prey for
other organisms. Thus the natural polarity of leaders and led cannot be
abolished without annihilating the organism. Liberalism was never entirely
successful in its fight against the State, despite the fact that it engaged in
political activity throughout the 19th century in alliance with every other type
of Stated-disintegrating force. Thus there were National-Liberals,
Social-Liberals, Free-Conservatives, Liberal-Catholics. They allied themselves
with democracy, which is not Liberal, but irresistibly authoritarian in success.
They sympathized with Anarchists when the forces of Authority sought to defend
themselves against them. In the 20th century, Liberalism joined Bolshevism in
Spain, and European and American Liberals sympathized with Russian Bolsheviks.
Liberalism can only be
defined negatively. It is a mere critique, not a living idea. Its great word
"freedom" is a negative it means in fact, freedom from authority,
i.e., disintegration of the organism. In its last stages it produces social
atomism in which not only the authority of the State is combated, but even the
authority of society and the family. Divorce takes equal rank with marriage,
children with parents. This constant thinking in negatives caused political
activists like Lorenz V. Stein and Ferdinand Lasalle to despair of it as a
political vehicle. Its attitudes were always contradictory, it sought always a
compromise. It sought always to "balance" democracy against monarchy,
managers against hand-workers, State against Society, legislative against
judicial. In a crisis, Liberalism as such was not to be found. Liberals found
their way on to one or the other side of a revolutionary struggle, depending on
the consistency of their Liberalism, and its degree of hostility to authority.
Thus Liberalism in action
was just as political as any State ever was. It obeyed organic necessity by its
political alliances with non-Liberal groups and ideas. Despite its theory of
individualism, which of course would preclude the possibility that one man or
group could call upon another man or group for the sacrifice or risk of life, it
supported "unfree" ideas like Democracy, Socialism, Bolshevism,
Anarchism, all of which demand life- sacrifice.
From its anthropology of the
basic goodness of human nature in general, Rationalism produced 18th century
Encyclopedism, Freemasonry, Democracy, and Anarchism, as well as Liberalism,
each with its offshoots and variations. Each played its part history of the 19th
century, and, owing to the critical distortion of the whole Western civilization
entailed by the first World Wars, even in the 20th century, where Rationalism is
grotesquely out of place, and slowly transformed itself into Irrationalism. The
corpse of Liberalism was not even interred by the middle of the 20th century.
Consequently it is necessary to diagnose even now the serious illness of the
Western Civilization as Liberalism complicated with alien-poisoning.
Because Liberalism views
most men as harmonious, or good, it follows that they should be allowed to do as
they like. Since there is no higher unit to which all are tied, and whose
super-personal life dominates the lives of the individuals, each field of human
activity serves only itself as long as it does not wish to become
authoritative, and stays within the framework of "society." Thus Art
becomes "Art for Art's sake," l'art pour l'art. All areas of
thought and action become equally autonomous. Religion becomes mere social
discipline, since to be more is to assume authority. Science, philosophy,
education, all are equally worlds unto themselves. None are subject to anything
higher. Literature and technics are entitled to the same autonomy. The function
of the State is merely to protect them by patents and copyrights. But above all
economics and law are independent of organic authority, i.e., of politics.
Twenty-first century readers
will find it difficult to believe that once the idea prevailed that each person
should be free to do as he pleased in economic matters, even if his personal
activity involved the starvation of hundreds of thousands, the devastation of
entire forest and mineral areas, and the stunting of the power of the organism;
that it was quite permissible for such an individual to raise himself above the
weakened public authority, and to dominate, by private means, the inmost
thoughts of whole populations by his control of press, radio and mechanized
They will find it more
difficult yet to understand how such a person could go to the law to enforce his
destructive will. Thus a usurer could, even in the middle of the 20th century,
invoke successfully the assistance of the law in dispossessing any numbers of
peasants and farmers. It is hard to imagine how any individual could injure the
political organism more than by thus mobilizing the soil into dust, in the
phrase of the great Freiherr von Stein.
But this followed
inevitably from the idea of the independence of economics and law from political
authority. There is nothing higher, no State; it is only individuals against one
another. It is but natural that the economically more astute individuals
accumulate most of the mobile wealth into their hands. They do not however, if
they are true Liberals, want authority with this wealth, for authority has two
aspects: power, and responsibility. Individualism, psychologically speaking, is
egoism. "Happiness" = selfishness. Rousseau, the grandfather of
Liberalism, was a true individualist, and sent his five children to the
Law, as a field of human
thought and endeavor, has as much independence, and as much dependence as every
other field. Within the organic framework, it is free to think and organize its
material. But like other forms of thought, it can be enrolled in the service of
outside ideas. Thus law, originally the means of codifying and maintaining the
inner peace of the organism by keeping order and preventing private disputes
from growing, was transmuted by Liberal thought into a means of keeping inner
disorder, and allowing economically strong individuals to liquidate the weaker
ones. This was called the "rule of law," the "law-State,"
"independence of the judiciary." The idea of bringing in the law to
make a given state of affairs sacrosanct was not original with Liberalism. Back
in Hobbes's day, other groups were trying it, but the incorruptible mind of
Hobbes said with the most precise clarity that the rule of law rule means the
rule of those who determine and administer the law, that the rule of a
"higher order" is an empty phrase, and is only given content by the
concrete rule of given men and groups over a lower order.
This was political thinking,
which is directed to the distribution and movement of power. It is also politics
to expose the hypocrisy, immorality and cynicism of the usurer who demands the
rule of law, which means riches to him and poverty to millions of others, and
all in the name of something higher, something with supra-human validity. When
Authority resurges once more against the forces of Rationalism and Economics, it
proceeds at once to show that the complex of transcendental ideals with which
Liberalism equipped itself is as valid as the Legitimism of the era of Absolute
Monarchy, and no more. The Monarchs were the strongest protagonists of
Legitimism, the financiers of Liberalism. But the monarch was tied to the
organism with his whole existence, he was responsible organically even where he
was not responsible in fact. Thus Louis XVI and Charles I. Countless other
monarchs and absolute rulers have had to flee because of their symbolic
responsibility. But the financier has only power, no responsibility, not even
symbolic, for, as often as not, his name is not generally known. History,
Destiny, organic continuity, Fame, all exert their powerful influence on an
absolute political ruler, and in addition his position places him entirely
outside the sphere of base corruptibility. The financier, however, is private,
anonymous, purely economic, irresponsible. In nothing can he be altruistic; his
very existence is the apotheosis of egoism. He does not think of History, of
Fame, of the furtherance of the life of the organism, of Destiny, and
furthermore he is eminently corruptible by base means, as his ruling desire is
for money and ever more money.
In his contest against
Authority the finance-Liberal evolved a theory that power corrupts men. It is,
however, vast anonymous wealth which corrupts, since there are no superpersonal
restraints on it, such as bring the true statesman completely into of the
service of the political organism, and place him above corruption.
It was precisely in the
fields of economics and law that the Liberal doctrine had the most destructive
effects on the health of the Western Civilization. It did not matter much that
esthetics became independent, for the only art-form in the West which still had
a future, Western Music, paid no attention to theories and continued on its
grand creative course to its end in Wagner and his epigones. Baudelaire is the
great symbol l'art pour l'art: sickness as beauty. Baudelaire is thus
Liberalism in literature, disease as a principle of Life, crisis as health,
morbidity as soul-life, disintegration as purpose. Man as individualist, an atom
without connections, the Liberal ideal of personality. It was in fields of
action rather than of thought that the injury was the greatest.
Allowing the initiative in
economic and technical matters to rest with individuals, subject to little
political control, resulted in the creation of a group of individuals whose
personal wills were more important than the collective destiny of the organism
and the millions of the population. The law which served this state of affairs
was completely divorced from morality and honor. To disintegrate the organism
from the spiritual side, what morality was recognized was divorced from
metaphysics and religion and related only to "society." The criminal
law reflected finance-Liberalism by punishing crimes of violence and passion,
but not classifying such things as destroying national resources, throwing
millions into want, or usury on a national scale.
The independence of the
economic sphere was a tenet of faith with Liberalism. This was not subject to
discussion. There was even evolved an abstraction named "economic
man," whose actions could be predicted as though economics were a vacuum.
Economic gain was his sole motive, greed alone spurred him on. The technic of
success was to concentrate on one's own gain and ignore everything else. This
"economic man" was however man in general to the Liberals. He was the
unit of their world-picture. "Humanity" was the sum total of these
economic grains of sand.
The type of mind which
believes in the essential "goodness" of human nature attained to
Liberalism. But there is another political anthropology, one which recognizes
that man is disharmonious, problematical, dual, dangerous. This is the general
wisdom of mankind, and is reflected by the number of guards, fences, safes,
locks, jails and policemen. Every catastrophe, fire, earthquake, volcanic
eruption, flood, evokes looting. Even a police strike in an American city was
the signal for looting of the shops by the respectable and good human beings.
Thus this type of thought
starts from facts. This is political thinking in general, as
opposed to mere thinking about politics, rationalizing. Even the wave of
Rationalism did not submerge this kind of thinking. Political thinkers differ
greatly in creativeness and depth, but they agree that facts are normative. The
very word theory has been brought into disrepute by intellectuals and Liberals
who use it to describe their pet view of how they would like things to be.
Originally theory was explanation of facts. To an intellectual who is adrift in
politics, a theory is an aim; to a true politician his theory is a boundary.
A political theory seeks to
find from history the limits of the politically possible. These limits cannot be
found in the domain of Reason. The Age of Reason was born in bloodshed, and will
pass out of vogue in more bloodshed. With its doctrine against war, politics,
and violence, it presided over the greatest wars and revolutions in 5,000 years,
and it ushered in the Age of Absolute Politics. With its gospel of the
Brotherhood of Man, it carried on the largest-scale starvation, humiliation,
torture and extermination in history against populations within the Western
Civilization after the first two World Wars. By outlawing political thinking,
and turning war into a moral-struggle instead of a power-struggle it flung the
chivalry and honor of a millennium into the dust. The conclusion is compelling
that Reason also became political when it entered politics, even though it used
its own vocabulary. When Reason stripped territory from a conquered foe after a
war, it called it "disannexation." The document consolidating the new
position was called a "Treaty," even though it was dictated in the
middle of a starvation-blockade. The defeated political enemy had to admit in
the "Treaty" that he was "guilty" of the war, that he is
morally unfit to have colonies, that his soldiers alone committed
"war-crimes." But no matter how heavy the moral disguise, how
consistent the ideological vocabulary, it is only politics, and the Age of
Absolute Politics reverts once again to the type of political thinking which
starts from facts, recognizes power and the will-to-power of men and higher
organisms as facts, and finds any attempt to describe politics in terms of
morals as grotesque as it would be to describe chemistry in terms of theology.
There is a whole tradition
of political thinking in the Western Culture, of which some of the leading
representatives are Macchiavelli, Hobbes, Leibnitz, Bossuet, Fichte, de Maistre,
Donoso Cortes, Hippolyte Taine, Hegel, Carlyle. While Herbert Spencer was
describing history as the "progress" from military-feudal to
commercial-industrial organization, Carlyle was showing to England the Prussian
spirit of Ethical Socialism, whose inner superiority would exert on the whole
Western Civilization in the coming Political Age an equally fundamental
transformation as had Capitalism in the Economic Age. This was creative
political thinking, but was unfortunately not understood, and the resulting
ignorance allowed distorting influences to fling England into two senseless
World Wars from which it emerged with almost everything lost.
Hegel posited a three-stage
development of mankind from the natural community through the bourgeois
community to the State. His State-theory is thoroughly organic, and his
definition of the bourgeois is quite appropriate for the 20th century. To him
the bourgeois is the man who does not wish to leave the sphere of internal
political security, who sets himself up, with his sanctified private property,
as an individual against the whole, who finds a substitute for his political
nullity in the fruits of peace and possessions and perfect security in his
enjoyment of them, who therefore wishes to dispense with courage and remain
secure from the possibility of violent death. He described the true Liberal with
The political thinkers
mentioned do not enjoy popularity with the great masses of human beings. As long
as things are going well, most people do not wish to hear talk of
power-struggles, violence, wars, or theories relating to them. Thus in the 18th
and 19th centuries was developed the attitude that political thinkers and
Macchiavelli was the prime victim were wicked men, atavistic, bloodthirsty.
The simple statement that wars would always continue was sufficient to put the
speaker down as a person who wanted wars to continue. To draw attention
to the vast, impersonal rhythm of war and peace showed a sick mind with moral
deficiency and emotional taint. To describe facts was held to be wishing them
and creating them. As late as the 20th century, anyone pointing out the
political nullity of the "leagues of nations" was a prophet of
despair. Rationalism is anti-historical; political thinking is applied history.
In peace it is unpopular to mention war, in war it is unpopular to mention
peace. The theory which becomes most quickly popular is one which praises
existing things and the tendency they supposedly illustrate as obviously the
best order and as preordained by all foregoing history. Thus Hegel was anathema
to the intellectuals because of his State-orientation, which made him a
"reactionary," and also because he refused to join the revolutionary
Since most people wish to
hear only soporific talk about politics, and not demanding calls to action, and
since in democratic conditions it matters to political technics what most people
wish to hear, democratic politicians evolved in the 19th century a whole
dialectic of party-politics. The idea was to examine the field of action from a
"disinterested" standpoint, moral, or economic, and to find that the
opponent was immoral, unscientific, uneconomic in fact he was political.
This was devilishness that must be combated. One's own standpoint was entirely
"non-political." Politics was a word of reproach in the Economic Age.
Curiously however, in certain situations, usually those involving foreign
relations, "unpolitical" could also be a term of abuse, meaning the
man so described lacked skill in negotiating. The party politician also had to
feign unwillingness to accept office. Finally a demonstration of carefully
arranged "popular will" broke down his reluctance, and he consented to
"serve." This was described as Macchiavellism, but obviously
Macchiavelli was a political thinker, and not a camouflageur. A book by a
party-politician does not read like The Prince, but praises the entire
human race, except certain perverse people, the author's opponents.
Actually Machiavelli's book
is defensive in tone, justifying politically the conduct of certain statesmen by
giving examples drawn from foreign invasions of Italy. During Macchiavelli's
century, Italy was invaded at different times by Frenchmen, Germans, Spaniards
and Turks. When the French Revolutionary Armies occupied Prussia, and coupled
humanitarian sentiments of the Rights of Man with brutality and large-scale
looting, Hegel and Fichte restored Machiavelli once again to respect as a
thinker. He represented a means of defense against a foe armed with a
humanitarian ideology. Machiavelli showed the actual role played by verbal
sentiments in politics.
One can say that there are
three possible attitudes toward human conduct, from the point of evaluating its
motives: the sentimental, the realistic, and the cynical. The sentimental
imputes a good motive to everybody, the cynical a bad motive, and the realistic
simply seeks the facts. When a sentimentalist, e.g., a Liberal, enters politics,
he becomes perforce a hypocrite. The ultimate exposure of this hypocrisy creates
cynicism. Part of the spiritual sickness following the First World War was a
wave of cynicism which arose from the transparent, revolting, and incredible
hypocrisy of the little men who were presiding over affairs at that time.
Macchiavelli had however an incorruptible intellect and did not write in a
cynical spirit. He sought to portray the anatomy of politics with its peculiar
problems and tensions, inner and outer. To the fantastic mental illness of
Rationalism, hard facts are regrettable things, and to talk about them is to
create them. A tiny politician of the Liberal type even sought to prevent talk
about the Third World War, after the Second. Liberalism is, in one word, weakness.
It wants every day to be a birthday, Life to be a long party. The inexorable
movement of Time, Destiny, History, the cruelty of accomplishment, sternness,
heroism, sacrifice, superpersonal ideas these are the enemy.
Liberalism is an escape from
hardness into softness, from masculinity into femininity, from History into
herd-grazing, from reality into herbivorous dreams, from Destiny into Happiness.
Nietzsche, in his last and greatest work, designated the 18th century as the
century of feminism, and immediately mentioned Rousseau, the leader of the
mass-escape from Reality. Feminism itself what is it but a means of
feminizing man? If it makes women man-like, it does so only by transforming man
first into a creature whose only concern is with his personal economics and his
relation to "society," ie. a woman. "Society" is the element
of woman, it is static and formal, its contests are purely personal, and are
free from the possibility of heroism and violence. Conversation, not action;
formality, not deeds. How different is the idea of rank used in
connection with a social affair, from when it is applied on a battlefield! In
the field, it is fate-laden; in the salon it is vain and pompous. A war is
fought for control; social contests are inspired by feminine vanity and jealousy
to show that one is "better" than someone else.
TRAGEDY OF YOUTH
Generation, Now Unemployed, Must Fight the War
Then Become Slaves in Red State That Follows
No SECTION of the American
populace has been more completely deceived by the forces interested in keeping
the truth from the people than America's youth. Youth stands to suffer most from
the present regime of America's enemies in control of America. Therefore, it
is from youth that the Leftist dictatorship might some day have the most to
The alien-minded minority in
control of the cinema, the radio, and the newspaper and magazine press has
poured out a constant stream of propaganda with the intent of gaining complete
spiritual power over the minds of young Americans emerging into maturity. With
what success the attempt has met everyone knows who has talked on their own
level to representative American youths from the ages of 19 to 27. One and all
their world-views have been cut out for them in New York, Hollywood, and
Appalling numbers of youth
have been led into a cynical ultra-sophisticated attitude which regards drinking
as a badge of social aptitude, which makes a fetish of sport and professes
eroticism as a way of life. A perverted and insane pictorial art, lewd
exhibitionistic dancing and jungle music form the spiritual norm of this sector
of America's youth.
Books, Magazines Carry
For those serious-minded
youths, who are genuinely interested in the tremendous problems now facing us,
another insidious attack has been devised. Books have been written, plays
staged, and an unending train of lecturers have mounted the platform all to
convey to these thinking youths the same message of class war and international
Magazines have been founded
for none other than propaganda purposes -- vide Life, Look, Click, Esquire,
Ken, Coronet -- and have been made up in such a way as to prove attractive
to the young readers.
The result of this campaign
to destroy Christian Americanism among the youth is that every periodical, 95
per cent of the books, and all the lecturers are Leftist. Leftist ideas are
a part of the very atmosphere which American youth breathes. The young person
whose reasoning powers have come to full development within the past seven years
has never even come in contact with a conservative, Christian view of life. His
professors are in the main Leftists, those who are not are afraid to speak out
for fear of their jobs. Most of the parents do not realize the spiritual
regimentation of their children because they themselves have been indoctrinated
along with them. Those parents who do think otherwise are considered
"old-fashioned," and proponents of the "horse-and-buggy
days" by the preachers of Roosevelt Leftism.
Youth Victims of Red
The tragedy of this
conscription of American youth under the banners of atheism, class-war, and
social degeneration is just this: that the continuance of the economic and
spiritual distress of the youth is an integral part of the revolutionary program
of the same Communist forces which have seduced and indoctrinated them.
According to Communist
leaders, the revolutionary struggle in the United States is in the stage of the
"Popular Front," with Mr. Roosevelt as the leader pro tempore.
The aim of a "Popular Front" government can best be set forth in the
words of Maurice Thorez, French Communist leader:
"It will be a
government which will give the working-class and the Communist Party all
possibilities for agitation, propaganda, organization and action, a government
which will make it possible to prepare for the complete seizure of power by the
working-class (i.e., by their self-chosen leaders), in brief, a government
which will be a prelude for the armed insurrection for the dictatorship of the
proletariat... For the Communists, the Popular Front is not a tactic of
expediency. Still less is it an election move. It is an element of their
fundamental policy, and application of the principles of Marx and Lenin ...
" (From his speech at Villeurbanne, January, 1936.)
Prosperity Fatal to
Now it is easy to see that
this program, however successful to date in America, cannot be fulfilled if our
nation is prosperous arid if the population is engaged in productive, decently
paid labor. Both the "Popular Front" which we now endure and its
successor, the blood-bath Communist dictatorship, are based on national
conditions of widespread economic distress and unemployment such as we now have.
The tactic that is being
employed to bring about the necessary crisis for the "complete seizure of
power" is that of producing a financial collapse by profligate and
insensate government expenditures on everything and anything. It does not matter
whether the projects are needed or not, all that matters is that the money gets
spent, and spent in such a way as to make the greatest number possible dependent
on the Government, thus to break their spirits and render them fertile ground
for planting class hatred, and prepare them for enrollment in the Left Army, an
army which now includes labor unions, W.P.A. workers, those on relief, organized
Negroes, the teachers and professors and the greater part of the youth.
The tragedy for youth lies
in this, that every condition for the success of the Communist scheme is created
at the expense of youth, and every tactic employed in actualizing it makes the
position of youth more desperate and more nearly hopeless.
Revolutionists Do Not Want
First, there is the ghastly
extent of unemployment among the youth. Hundreds of thousands of young Americans
up to the age of 27 have never had any other employment than Government relief
work. When will they realize that the alien-minded minority in control of our
country does not want this condition with its revolutionary possibilities
Second, the burden that the
ever-growing national debt imposes is almost solely a burden on the youth. No
matter how this debt is liquidated, by confiscatory inflation, or by being paid
off, dollar for dollar, it will be paid at the cost of liberty and happiness of
present-day American youth. If all the private and corporate wealth of the
nation is confiscated to pay off the debt, what economic force will be left in
the country that can run a country and employ the idle millions? And such a
collapse is just the crisis out of which a Red dictatorship will fasten on
America. If the other alternative is adopted, it will mean that the youth of the
present will be slaves during their whole life, working, not for their own wants
and happiness, but in order to pay $2 out of every $3 they earn to the
Government. The national standard of living in this case would not be pleasant
Third, the individual future
of almost every American youth has been jeopardized. Not one of those same young
men now in universities and professional schools who spend their conversation in
deciding "how to stop Hitler" knows where or whether he can start his
Where is there research or
construction to take up all the young engineers, business to take tip
accountants and stenographers?
How many families can now
afford to have a doctor every time they need one?
Or to litigate their legal
Where is there a future for
those trained in commerce?
Youth Always Fights the
Lastly, American youth by
the millions will be conscripted into armies to be sent to Asia and Europe to
fight the battle of world Communism, unless a powerful Christian nationalism
arises to cast out the alien-thinking minority in Washington. A war will
give our "liberal" Government a chance to avenge wrongs done it by
those foreign governments which have liquidated class war within their nations,
and to defeat by a repressive war-dictatorship the incipient movement among the
people against radicalism and in favor of a Christian nationalistic government.
Those to return from the
battlefields where world Communism would send them to a Communist America would
perhaps wish they were in the war cemeteries of Western Europe with their
With this prospect -- with
the assurance of Communist leaders that the Popular Front is not only to defeat
Fascism, but also to bring about Communist dictatorship -- with the mask torn
off the Leftist trend of many in high posts of control in the Federal Government
-- no longer controlled by Americans -- is American youth to wait supinely,
absorbed in picture magazines, for the butchers to start their blood bath here?
Youth of America -- Awake!
It's your problem and your task. You are the special victim if they win
Dreamer of the Day
Francis Parker Yockey and the Postwar Fascist International
Reviewed by Martin Kerr.
Published by Autonomedia, Brooklyn, NY, 1999. Paperback, 646 pp., index.
Available for $19.95 postpaid from:Autonomdia, P.O. Box 568, Williamsburgh
Station, Brooklyn, NY 11211-0568.
Perhaps the most mysterious
and misunderstood personality of the postwar American Nationalist Movement is
Francis Parker Yockey. He is best known, and rightly so, for his masterpiece,
Imperium, although he also authored a dozen or so short works which elaborate or
update the themes in that book.
Imperium is a great but
infuriating work for Racial Nationalists, for reasons that will soon become
apparent. But as difficult and problematic as Yockey may be, he is still a
figure of enormous ideological importance for the Movement (however one defines
"the Movement"). As Nietzsche once noted, even the mistakes of great
thinkers are more fruitful than the greatest thoughts of lesser minds.
We were understandably
elated, then, to learn that Kevin Coogan's long-awaited biography of Yockey,
Dreamer of the Day, had finally been printed. It will certainly spark a renewed
interest in both Yockey's life and thought throughout the Movement.This
interest, in turn, will stimulate ideological discussion and investigation,
which can only benefit Racial Nationalism. Before considering Dreamer of the
Day, however, it will be useful to review some salient points of Yockey's
It is difficult to
categorize Yockey and his thought. He himself called his philosophy
"Imperialism," and his proposed political system he termed
"Ethical Socialism." It is clear that he was broadly sympathetic to
the National Socialism of Adolf Hitler (to whom he dedicated Imperium), but it
is also clear that he was not a National Socialist. His most significant point
of departure from National Socialist and Racial Nationalist thought was in the
matter of Race. Here, as elsewhere, he followed the lead of Oswald Spengler.
Both Yockey and Spengler were opposed to "materialistic,"
"biological," or "scientific" racialism, and instead
proposed a complex spiritual-cultural racial theory.
If one insists on placing
Yockey in a specific ideological cubbyhole, the terms "Neo-Fascist" or
"Neo-Spenglerian" would come closest. Rather than try to summarize all
of Yockey's system of thought in this limited space, let us simply concentrate
on two key issues. The first of these is Race, and the second the concerns the
nature of the American government.
For Racial Nationalists, the
survival of the White Race is the paramount issue of our times. This goal is
succinctly expressed in David Lane's "14 words": "We must secure
the existence of our people and a future for white children." Yockey's
concern, on the other hand, was not for the future of the White Race as a
biological entity, but rather for the preservation and expansion of Western
Certainly there is
considerable overlap here, as Western civilization is a product of the White
Race, and unthinkable without it.Nevertheless, Yockian and Racial Nationalist
thought each has a different focus. Yockey asserted, for example, that nonwhites
could become members of the "Western Race" to the degree to which they
inwardly and truly assimilated Western values and personally identified with
Western Culture. In particular, he felt that Jews were capable of becoming
Westerners, an assertion some Racial Nationalists reject.
The second crucial aspect of
Yockeyism is its contention that the American government, and not the Soviet
Union, was the most dangerous enemy of Europe and Western Man. In this he was
proven correct: the threat posed by Soviet Communism is now long past, and it is
the U.S. which is spearheading the drive for a multiracial New World Order and
the ultimate extinction of the White Race. With this simplified (and somewhat
incomplete) synopsis of Yockey's thought as background, we can now consider
Yockey's life as presented by Kevin Coogan in Dreamer of the Day.
Francis Parker Yockey was
born in Chicago in 1917 and grew up in the Midwest. He was intellectually
precocious, and even at a young age showed signs of genius. Although he had
musical ability that could have made him a world-class concert pianist, his real
interests lay in the fields of philosophy, history and world politics. By his
teenage years he was involved in radical Nationalism, and by the time he entered
college, he was addressing Nationalist meetings and writing for Nationalist
publications.His first known printed article was "The Tragedy of
Youth," which appeared in the August 21, 1939, issue of Father
CharlesCoughlin's newspaper, Social Justice. He was also involved with a number
of organizations, including the much-maligned German-American Bund.
Yockey attended a number of
universities, eventually graduating cum laude from Notre Dame law school in
1941. He passed the Michigan bar, and began practicing as an attorney. By 1942,
President Franklin Roosevelt, largely at the behest of German-hating ethnic
special interests, had involved the U.S. in the Second World War. Yockey joined
the army, but his military career was short-lived. He was honorably discharged
in 1943, following a bizarre incident in which he disappeared for two months and
then voluntarily turned himself in to Army authorities. The Army felt that
Yockey was mentally unstable, but biographer Coogan presents tantalizing
evidence that Yockey was involved in a German spy ring, and that his mysterious
disappearance was in connection with a failed espionage operation.
Yockey subsequently landed a
job for himself with the military tribunal prosecuting "second string"
German "War criminals" in Wiesbaden, in 1946. In fact, however, Yockey
was sympathetic with many of these accused war criminals. He spent little time
at his official duties, but rather occupied himself with establishing links to
the National Socialist underground operating in postwar Germany. He was fired
from his job, which freed him for his more important political work in occupied
Europe.. He apparently financed his travels through black-market dealings, if
Coogan is to be believed.
After spending some time in
Britain, in 1948 Yockey retired to Brittas Bay, in Southern Ireland. It is here
that he wrote his masterwork, Imperium. At this time Sir Oswald Mosely was
reemerging from politi-cal hibernation following his war-time incarceration.
Yockey worked with Mosely's Union Movement briefly, but broke with it over Mos-ley's
failure to sponsor the publica-tion of Imperium. Yockey and a handful of British
comrades then formed the European Liberation Front (ELF), for which Yockey
authored a manifesto, The Procla-mation of London. The ELF never amounted to
much organizationally, but through its newsletter, Front-fighter, it provided a
forum for Yockey to publish various essays and articles.
From 1948 until his death in
1960 (at age 43), Yockey traveled the globe in a tireless and unending effort to
promote his ideals.Coogan has done a masterful job in researching this obscure
period in Yockey's life. Unlike many self-important Movement leaders who love to
bask in the limelight of media attention, Yockey, a true man of destiny,
preferred working from the shadows, anonymously. This fondness for the twilight
presents monumental difficulties for a biographer, but Coogan has impressively
surmounted them. Coogan draws upon information released by the FBI under the
Freedom of Information of Privacy Act. He further obtained the cooperation of
the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith and other anti-Nationalist watchdog
groups. Piecing together information from their files, along with interviews
from Yockey's surviving comrades, Coogan was able to reasonably document
Yockey's travels and activities for almost twenty years.
We learn, for example, that
Yockey worked briefly as a speech-writer for Sen. Joseph McCarthy - and that he
journeyed to Soviet-occupied Eastern Europe as a paid courier for a Communist
secret service. In Montreal, he stayed with Canadian Fascist leader Adrian
Arcand. He spent time in Egypt, where he met with Gamel Abdul Nasser, who had
just led a successful Nationalist revolution against the Egyptian monarchy.
Shortly before his death, Yockey was in Cuba, attempting to meet with the
country's new Communist dictator, Fidel Castro. Back in the U.S., Yockey
involved himself in American Nationalist politics, and wrote articles published
by the New York-based National Renaissance Party. But always his center of
gravity was in Europe, which he considered his true homeland. Once, when his
travels landed him back in the U.S. temporarily, he lamented, "I'm back on
the wrong continent.."
In June of 1960 he was once
again on the wrong continent, this time in California, where the FBI finally
caught up with him.They had been chasing him for a decade. He was charged with
passport fraud, and held on $50,000 bail, which was an astronomical sum for such
a minor offense. It was clear more serious charges would be filed.
Two weeks later, follow-ing
some futile courtroom ma-neuvering and a failed jail-break, Francis Parker
Yockey committed suicide in his jail cell. Some have sug-gested that he was
murdered, but author Coogan convinc-ingly presents the case that his death was
voluntary and self-induced.
Ironically, it was only
after his death that Yockey's ideas began to reach a wide audience. Imperium had
previ-ously been an underground book, virtually unknown and impossible to
obtain. Following his demise, a mass-market edition quickly appeared, first as a
hardback and then as a paperback. Other essays and short works by Yockey were
subsequently published in popular editions.
Dreamer of the Day is a
massive book, 646 pages long. The text is in small type, and the copious
endnotes which accompany each chapter, are in even smaller type, as are the
lengthy citations from declassified secret intelligence reports, Yockey's
writings, and the works of other authors. The monumental nature of the book is
made necessary by Coogan's desire to present a complete and definitive picture.
The result is not just the biography of one man, but rather a history and
encyclopedia of radical European Nationalism from the end of the Second World
War up to 1960. Reading this book cover-to-cover is a substantial investment of
time and mental energy - but it is well worth the effort for those interested in
Nationalist history and ideology.
REVIEWED BY MARTIN KERR,
Falls Church, Virginia.
Brussels, Phoenix/Arizona, 9th
- Cercleuropa@wanadoo.fr - email@example.com
INFOEUROPA (en espaρol): http://members.es.tripod.de/INFOEUROPA/
Francis Parker Yockey Page II
to Francis Parker Yockey Page III
Criticism Of His Writings and
Francis Parker Yockey
aka "Ulick Varange" The entire book on this web site!