Classic EssaysRevilo P. Oliver

The Enemy of Our Enemies: A Critique of Francis Parker Yockey’s The Enemy of Europe

by Revilo P. Oliver

SECTION 4

The Heartland

FOR YOCKEY, both kinds of colonies have only a secondary importance. The attitudes and cultural vitality of Europeans who have established themselves in other continents are determined by the power and vitality of their mother country. European dominion over other races is merely an epiphenomenon, a measure of a European nation’s power, a salutary reminder that, as he tells us, power can be maintained only by increasing it.

We return, therefore, to the fundamental fact that new weapons have imposed on Europe a necessary unity. He is aware, of course, of the impediments to such a union: the ethnic differences that seem small only when our race is compared to other races; the corresponding differences in traditions and temperament, producing what Jacques RiviŠre described as discordant nervous rhythms; and the diversity of languages, perhaps the most troublesome barrier of all and one that grows higher, as the major languages deteriorate with the decline of education in the several countries. So great are the differences within Europe that the eminent historian, Geoffrey Barraclough, (21) denies that “European unity” ever existed in the past or the present, rejects all claims for a “common western European tradition,” and sees no cultural force that can create “bonds (or potential bonds) of unity between England and France (for example) or France and Spain.” Very well, but later in his book he foresees that in the future “the war of 1939-45 will appear…as the decisive conflict in which Europe, committing suicide, surrendered mastery to the coloured peoples.” So, in the end, he sees, as does Yockey, a unity imposed on Europe by a common destiny, by the natural and implacable hatred that the other races feel for our own–races that both the Soviet and the United States, in an effective partnership, are inciting and arming against our homeland.

(21. Geoffrey Barraclough, History in a Changing World (Oxford, 1955), pp. 43. 183.)

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

It is a regrettable but undeniable fact that the great mass of the population is interested only in present comfort and gross satisfactions; unwilling to take thought for their class, their nation, or their race and incapable of taking such thought anyway; materialists in Yockey’s sense of that word (which has nothing to do with philosophical thought, from which they would instinctively flee as owls from the light) and craving only animal satisfactions, although they frequently have fits of religiosity or hypocritically affect a concern for their “fellow man,” if such concern is in vogue and profitable. They are proletarians, regardless of income; they are by nature Untermenschen, the more pernicious the greater their incomes or the higher the positions to which they have climbed in a governmental or industrial bureaucracy. Theirs is the ochlocracy for which the United States made the world safe, while making the world unsafe for civilization. They are, however, a necessary part–a very large part–of every population, and the first task of a statesman is to control that mass in the interest of a civilization it cannot understand.

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

The Nutcracker

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

We are confronted by a total lack of trustworthy data. All of our information concerning conditions inside Russia comes from either Soviet or Jewish sources and is therefore mendacious except insofar as it may, through inadvertence or coincidence, contain some elements of fact. Russia–I speak of Russia because the rest of the vast Soviet Empire is merely its appendage–is, on even the most hopeful assumption, in the hands of men who have mastered the techniques of misinformation and disinformation, and who have virtually absolute and total control over all significant news concerning events in their empire, except what may come through Jewish sources. To be sure, a considerable number of men have defected from the Soviet and found asylum in Western nations, but for each of them we must first try to determine whether or not he is, as some of them undoubtedly are, a Soviet or Jewish agent, sent to increase our perplexity and confusion by providing a superficially different variety of misinformation and disinformation. If we have satisfied ourselves of his bona fides, we have the even more difficult problem of determining whether his reports are misleading because his knowledge of the facts is limited and inadequate, or because he has made his report serve his own resentments or ambitions, or because he conceals some part of the truth to avoid offending the Jews or a corrupt and perfidious government that could at any time return him to Soviet territory and a terrible death.

Our dilemma may be illustrated by a trivial bit of news from Russia, chosen at random. The press recently reported that Brezhnev was being treated by a wonderful “psychic healer,” whose photograph shows her to be a not unattractive young woman, white but certainly not Aryan. She is said to have a luxurious apartment in Moscow, complete with servants, to travel in a limousine, complete with chauffeur, and to dress expensively and elegantly.

Our press is apt to be truthful in reporting trivial matters, if one allows for the journalists’ normal sensationalism. If the “psychic healer” were said to be ministering to a British Prime Minister or an American President, we would suppose that he either

1) was in fact suffering from some psychosomatic malady, or

2) had found a neat way to maintain a mistress in style.

But the news is about the Soviet President and came through a censorship that is vigilant about even trivialities. So we have to consider other possible explanations:

3) Brezhnev has become senile and feeble-minded, and the rulers of the Soviet are preparing us for his replacement.

4) Brezhnev’s sickness is political, and we are being prepared for his removal by sudden death or forced retirement into obscurity.

5) The mention of Brezhnev is merely a trick to secure wide publicity for a story concocted by Russian experts in psychological warfare to further the epidemic of superstition and irrationality that is reducing the American masses to imbecility and thus hastening the national paralysis. This interpretation is supported by the inclusion in the story of a statement from a Russian physician, who certifies the miraculous cures accomplished by the witch’s “laying on of hands.” The story therefore fits neatly into the long series of stories that have been coming out of the Soviet in recent years to make credulous persons believe that Russian “scientists” are making wonderful discoveries about “extrasensory perception,” “telepathy,” psi-power,” and other occult hocus-pocus.

6) The story was manufactured by the Jews for the same purpose. As everyone knows, their press and boob-tubes in the United States are making a concerted effort to induce hallucinations in the masses by lustily advertising the charlatans, thaumaturges, astrologers, “psychics,” evangelists, and other swindlers who are so lucratively preying on the ignorant and simple-minded.

7) There is the last possibility that this and other hokum about “psychic” marvels in Russia, instead of being acts of psychological warfare, more or less accurately reflect a wave of occult superstition in the Soviet that is tolerated either because (a) the rulers think it provides harmless amusement for the masses, or (b) the regime is actually disintegrating and cannot shore up the official Marxian religion. The latter hypothesis will please those who wish to attribute recent disorders in Poland to Russian weakness, and the perennial hopefuls who never tire of assuring us that there is a craving for “freedom” in Russia and that a proletarian revolution there is sure to break out any moment since 1947.

The story about the “psychic healer” is, of course, too trivial to be of interest other than as an example of the kind of questions that we must ask ourselves about every bit of seemingly significant news that comes out of Russia, a territory that is enclosed by a censorship as efficient as the famous border that prevents unauthorized escapes from Soviet territory. No one can be really certain of what goes on behind that barrier. The most brazen lying is commonplace even when there is no official censorship. There is no greater intercourse between two nations that than between Britain and the United States, and thousands of Britons are visiting or travelling in this country at any given time. But nevertheless one of the leading newspapers in London, The Observer, on 8 March 1981 carried a scare-head in large type: “Shadow of Terror Falls on U.S. Jews,” and feeble-minded Englishmen were invited to believe that all of the millions of God’s Race in this country were cowering in dread of the moment when the American “Nazis” will start popping them into gas chambers and reducing them to holy ashes.

We have been assured so many times that the Jews were losing or had lost control of Russia and the Soviet! The first wave of such hopeful thinking came when Bronstein, alias Trotsky, scuttled out of Russia, having purportedly lost a power-struggle with Dzhugashvili, alias Stalin. One consequence was that the misfits, crackpots, overgrown infants, and mattoids that formed the Communist Parties in civilized countries split into “Trotskyites” and “Stalinists,” who quarrelled as furiously as did the Christian Homoousians and Homoeousians. The net result, however, was to accelerate and amplify the diffusion of Communist propaganda, and in the late 1930s the weekly periodical, Time, which was then still largely in American hands, suggested that Bronstein and Dzhugashvili were really co”perating in staging a performance for the suckers. The subsequent murder of Bronstein in Mexico proves nothing, for by that time (1940) he had become an embarrassment and impediment to “Stalin,” who needed to reunite his stooges and dupes in the United States in preparation for the day when the American cattle would be stampeded into Europe. The view expressed by Time is not widely held now, but it has never been conclusively refuted.

After Trotsky’s exodus from the new Holy Land in 1929, the next onset of propaganda that the Jews were losing control of their Soviet colony came with the “purge trials” of 1936-37, in which a passel of “Old Bolsheviks,” most of them Jews, were spectacularly prosecuted and liquidated by Stalin’s subordinates, most of them Jews. The trials were a shock to Westerners who na‹vely believed no hair on the head of a Jew could be harmed in a country controlled by his fellow tribesmen, forgetting how savagely Jews slew one another in struggles of power within their race, e.g., when Jesus and Onias slugged it out for the office of High Priest in 170-169 B.C., or the otherwise unrecorded occasion around A.D. 30 that provided the corpses which proved to horrified archaeologists that Jewish ingenuity had found a way to increase even the torments of crucifixion for fellow Jews who were mutinous. No one yet has convincingly explained why Stalin preferred to stage a grandiose show for the civilized world instead of having the selected “Old Bolsheviks” quietly disposed of in convenient lime-pits.

Yockey, however, was convinced by a smaller show in Prague and, as he tells us at the beginning of The Enemy of Europe, he revised its text in 1952 to take into account an event that he had foreseen in 1948. He discussed it in greater detail in an essay, “What is Behind the Hanging of the Eleven Jews in Prague?” It was clearly written for publication by his European Liberation Front, but, so far as I know, never printed. (22)

(22. It may have appeared in the short-lived periodical, The Frontfighter, of which I have seen only one number. I have photostats of a typewritten copy. It is reproduced in Appendix II below.)

Yockey marshals his arguments effectively. When Stalin joined the Jewish Crusade Against Europe, he appealed to Russian nationalism and patriotism to encourage his armies and peoples. That is one of the few verifiable facts before us, but we remember that our great War Criminal used American patriotism to pep up the livestock that he was sending to Europe to slaughter and be slaughtered for Yahweh’s Master Race. For that matter, the cannon-fodder were told that wicked Hitler planned to invade the United States, and there were nincompoops so ignorant of military and naval logistics that they believed it. On the other hand, it was Germany’s purpose to destroy the Soviet, so there was a genuine basis for Stalin’s appeal to his subjects.

It is undoubtedly true that the Slavs feel a deep racial antipathy to the Jews and would gladly purge their territory of them. The question, however, is whether they are or will become sufficiently intelligent and strong to indulge that desire in defiance of the rest of the world, whom the Jews would infallibly incite against them.

It is probably true that the Jews planned to obtain a monopoly of atomic weapons by having them made the exclusive property of the silly vaudeville show in New York City called the “United Nations,” which was simply a flimsy screen for their age-old dream of “One World” under their rule. (23) If so, Russia’s insistence on using American and British knowledge to equip herself with the feared weapons disappointed them. To that extent, at least, Stalin acted as a Russian Czar, not as a stooge for the Jews.

(23. It would seem that the Jews lost interest in the farce, which now serves to provide, at the expense of American taxpayers, a luxurious life in New Jerusalem-on-the-Hudson for diplomatic riff-raff and savages, whose endless jabbering is as significant as that which may be heard at the monkey house in Bronx Park. Muzzy-headed American women still fancy that the babble has meaning, but the Jews are too intelligent to pay attention to it and probably do not even laugh when some idler calls for a “resolution” against their world-capital in Palestine.)

Yockey believed that the “cold war,” proclaimed by the Jews’ half-English stooge, Churchill, on a visit to the United States, was really an attempt by the Jews to encircle Russia, rather than a convenient pretext to get more Americans killed, in Korea and elsewhere, and to pump more blood out of the veins of American taxpayers to flush down sewers in Asia and to subsidize, under the guise of “foreign aid,” the Communist conquest of one nation after another. It must be remembered that at the time Yockey wrote, the rodomontade manufactured in Washington sounded more convincing than it does now in retrospect, and that the “cold war” did excite intelligent Americans with a hope that they could force their government to action in conformity with its endless jabbering about “saving the Free World.”

Yockey also took seriously the Yiddish yelping about “anti-Semitism” in Russia, which may have been no more than a ploy to deaden the hostility toward Russia felt by Americans who still hoped that their nation would someday act in its own interests. It must not be forgotten that the Americans who were most hostile to the Soviet were precisely the ones who would be mollified by reports that the Russians were shaking off their Jewish masters. (24)

(24. A good example is Commander S.M. Riis, a veteran of Naval Intelligence, who was stationed in Russia at the time of the Jewish take-over of that country in 1917-18. In his old age, he succeeded in boarding the ship that had brought Kruschchev to the United States; he conversed with agents of the N.K.V.D. disguised as simple Russian sailors and was assured that Kruschchev was a “real Russian” who was kicking out the alien invaders. Believing that the Jews had at last lost control, he was greatly encouraged. See his Karl Marx, Master of Deceit (New York, Speller, 1962).)

Yockey also noticed that in the United States a pair of Jews, the Rosenbergs, were falsely accused of treason (for they had been strictly loyal to their race) and thrown to the wolves–to appease the Americans who resented the betrayal of their own country by Roosevelt and his successors, and also to facilitate the escape of other spies and saboteurs who had been caught in the act.

Yockey therefore concluded that the “treason trials in Bohemia” were “an unmistakable turning point” and, despite the official piffle in both Russian and Jewish sources, marked an “undeniable reshaping of the world-situation.” The fact that “the Russian leadership is killing Jews for treason to Russia” was nothing less than “a war-declaration by Russia on the Jewish-American leadership.” Stalin, who, Yockey recognizes, “had been pro-Jewish in his inner- and outer-policy” for thirty-five years, had at last taken the part of Russia against international Jewry, who had to abandon their hopes that they could “replace the Stalin r‚gime.” Yockey could not foresee that Stalin would die a year later in circumstances that gave rise to rumors that the Jews had at last succeeded in poisoning him.

To the end of his life, Yockey remained convinced that a war between the Jews’ United States and the Soviet was inevitable. That conviction was the basis of his last essay, written shortly before his death in 1960. Its cover is reproduced here on the following page [see original–Ed.].

I do not know whether Yockey saw and approved the vividly symbolical painting, in the manner of Salvador Dali, that is reproduced on that cover or the date that is set beneath it. It he did set the date, 1975, he was in good company, as I shall remark later.

The World in Flames is a concise and lucidly logical conspectus of the situation in 1960, cogent if one accepts the premise that the Russians had liberated themselves from the Jews. On that assumption, the relentless expansion of Soviet power and the establishment of a Soviet outpost in Cuba, at the very doors of the United States, represented a series of defeats for the international race.

Yockey’s analysis of the military situation is still valid. The Americans, if they are driven to fight the Soviet, will rely on ballistic missiles, but cannot win a war, since, even if they had an effective army, it could not mount an invasion of Soviet territory with the enormous number of ground troops necessary to occupy it, and Europeans cannot be induced to fight again for the American-Jewish symbiosis. Russia will use ballistic missiles, since the logistic problem of transporting armies across the Atlantic or Pacific is one she cannot solve.

American missiles can inflict a certain amount of damage on a few cities, etc., but Russia is relatively invulnerable to such attacks because she is not really urbanized, her important installations are scattered throughout her vast territory, and her essentially agrarian people have the high morale of imperialism and will not be dismayed by such destruction and losses as it may be possible to inflict on them. Russian missiles, produced by German scientists and technicians and therefore more accurate and effective, will be directed at American cities, the destruction of which will not only paralyze the nation militarily, but will dismay a population already demoralized by peace-lubbers, fatuous females, and youth made derelict and cowardly by the rotting of our culture. The blasting of a few cities will make the panic-stricken rabble eager to surrender. (Yockey probably did not know that Washington was even then making studies of “strategic surrender” in the event of hostilities.)

When the United States surrenders, as it must and will, the situation will be drastically changed. Yockey notes that the British, a relatively civilized people much given to prating about their moral superiority and to the vapid idealism of humanitarians, having obtained the support of Americans crazed by a holy war, induced the Germans to surrender in November 1918, and then, by an act of unprecedented treachery, blockaded the helpless Germans for the express purpose of killing civilians, and did in fact starve to death a million Germans before lifting the blockade in July 1919. Now the Russians are barbarians and have never talked nonsense about the “sanctity of human life” and similar vaporings of sentimentalists. Their leaders, furthermore, are realists and have never shown the slightest inclination to imagine that treaties are more than pieces of soiled paper. Even if the United States does not surrender unconditionally (that would be poetic justice!), the Russians will not be obligated by such terms as they may have granted on paper to spare themselves unnecessary effort. In all probability, therefore, they will proceed, after the surrender, to annihilate forever the United States as a possible source of future trouble. They will, of course, immediately destroy all of the country’s remaining industrial capacity. What is uncertain is whether they will elect (a) to occupy the territory with troops, reduce its population by starvation or shooting them as may seem the more entertaining, and spare the rest for use as serfs, at least until the land can be colonized by Russians, a virile and growing people; or (b) to reduce the territory to a lifeless and uninhabitable desert.

Yockey, writing in 1960, believed that the inevitable war might be precipitated at any time and would certainly begin no later than 1975, the date given on the cover of his booklet. He obviously miscalculated, but so did men with access to the secret information accumulated by what was left of American Intelligence services. It was also in 1960 that an American Colonel in Military Intelligence, who had extensive experience during the Korean “War” and had maintained, after his retirement, close connections with the C.I.A., privately assured me that the war was inevitable, that the United States would be quickly vanquished, and that the country would be occupied by Russian troops, who would systematically exterminate all Americans suspected of intelligence and self-respect. That, he was certain, would happen by 1970 at the latest. His calculations thus allowed a shorter term than Yockey’s, whose major thesis he did not accept. He believed that when the Russians invaded this country, the Jews would joyously co”perate with them, as they had done everywhere in Europe. He also believed that the Russians would therefore minimize damage to New York City and other Jewish enclaves in the United States.

Other miscalculations, made at the time by men whose experience and knowledge qualified them to judge, gave approximately the same result, with only a difference of a few years in the terminal date. It would take many pages to recapitulate the evidence and logical deductions on which the various estimates were based, and many more to inquire why the expected war did not occur. It will suffice to have made it clear that Yockey, an observer without access to secret information, was no more in error than experienced men who had the great advantage of knowing facts that were concealed from the public.

The Paradox

Yockey was aware of the major objection to his analysis: If the Jews had lost control of Russia, how did it happen that the United States, which saved the Soviet in 1941-45, (25) continued to facilitate the expansion of Russian power? I cannot do better than quote his answer:

“Russian “successes”–except for its German-made rockets–are all the gift of the Washington regime, Jewish-American political stupidity is invincible. But the power-gifts which the Washington regime has made to Russia are not explicable entirely by simple stupidity, simple incapacity. There is a further factor at work that the Zionist Washington regime is on both sides of most power-questions in the world. Its sole firm stand is its fundamental anti-German position: Germany must be destroyed, its young men must be slaughtered. In Algeria, Washington is with both sides: it is with the French Government, as its “ally”: it is with the rebels by virtue of its world-program of “freedom” for everybody. In Egypt, the Washington regime told Palestine, England and France to attack, and when Russia rose, it told them to stop. It was, within a week, anti-Nasser and pro-Nasser. It occupied Lebanon, then evacuated it. It held back Chiang when, from his island, he would have attacked China, with whom the Washington regime was then at war. It defended South Korea, but helped the Chinese maintain their supply line to the front. During the Chinese War in Korea, it made war and negotiated peace at the same time, for years. In Cuba, it forbade the exportation of arms to the loyal Batista and thus helped Fidel Castro; now it is committed to the overthrow of Castro.

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

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

The foregoing analysis is, of course, open to question. Was there ever any change in the policy actually pursued by the government in Washington, as distinct from bleating by Presidents and the like to keep the boobs confused? Was not that policy consistently and uniformly directed to ensuring the maximum disgrace and loss to the Americans and to making them take slow and unperceived steps toward their eventual liquidation? The commitment “to the overthrow of Castro” of which Yockey speaks was, of course, just a spoonful of paregoric for the grown-up moppets. Most recently, as everyone knows, the United States delivered to Castro another possession, Nicaragua.

(25. In his essay on the hanging of the eleven Jews in Prague, Yockey mentioned a small part of what America, at the behest of its Jewish masters, gave to the Soviet: 14,795 airplanes, 375,883 trucks, and 7,056 tanks. He seems not to have known that the Soviet was also supplied with both the technical information and the materials necessary for the manufacture of atomic bombs. In The World in Flames, he does comment on the thoroughness and ubiquity of Soviet espionage in the United States, in contrast to the nugatory efforts of American Intelligence to penetrate Russia, but he seems not to have asked himself to what extent Soviet espionage depended on Jews in its service and on cooperation with the Jewish espionage system, admittedly by far the best in the world.)

Yockey’s attribution of schizophrenia to the Jews is, of course, subject to the basic consideration that we can never understand their mentality: we can only observe the actions of a race generically different from our own and accumulate data which will enable us to say, statistically, that in a given situation the racial collectivity will react in a specific way. It is always hazardous and usually or invariably wrong to describe their conduct or motives in terms of our psychology and morality. What would be schizophrenia in an Aryan or group of Aryans, for example, is such by contrast with the normal mentality of our race. If it is characteristic of another race, it cannot be an anomaly in that race, and what seems abnormal to us must be normal in it. Yockey, however, is right in that those who believe that the Jews no longer control Russia must postulate that their racial mentality functions in a way that is incomprehensible in terms of our standards of rationality.

By far the most thorough, objective, and cogent presentation of the case for the view that the Russians have attained at least a measure of independence is found in Wilmot Robertson’s The Dispossessed Majority and its pendant, Ventilations. (26) He assembled all the usual data, and almost every datum is open to doubt. Statistics and statements from Russian and Jewish sources represent what their authors thought it expedient for us to believe at the given time, and the Jews notoriously conceal, so far as possible, their actual numbers in each country they have infiltrated. When we are told, for example, that the percentage of Jewish deputies in the Supreme Soviet dropped from 41.1% to 0.25% between 1939 and 1958, we wonder whether the source is Russian or Jewish; if it is an estimate made by a European, it must be largely based on personal names, and the ingenuity of Jews in masquerading under native names and otherwise concealing their race is notorious, and we have the further and insoluble question of the genetic effects of a tincture of Jewish blood in any individual’s ancestry. (27) Furthermore, if the persons holding office are demonstrably non-Jewish, they may nevertheless be mere puppets manipulated from behind the scenes by Jews through wives, financial or political pressure, or deeply implanted superstitions.

(26. The Dispossessed Majority (Cape Canaveral, Florida, 1972), pp. 451-465, cf. pp. 346-353. Ventilations (ibidem, 1973), pp. 9-17. The publisher, Howard Allen Enterprises, announces that completely revised editions, printed from newly set type, of both books will be published in the autumn of 1981.)

(27. See above, p. 27, note 30. If Dr. Nossig is right abut the genetic peculiarity of his race, that opens possibilities far more drastic and terrible than any thus far glimpsed or imagined by even the most vehement anti-Jewish writers. With the exception of a few noble families that have kept archives–it is said that there are in Britain two families that can trace their ancestry back to 1066 with certainty–the genealogical records of most individuals, even those who have attained some prominence, seldom go back more than a very few generations without the help of fantasy, and they quickly reach the point at which ancestors, especially females, are mere names. The names of Jews fall into three categories, viz.: 1) authentically Jewish names, e.g., Isaac, Jesus, Nathan; 2) Western names that have become distinctively Jewish, e.g., Rosenthal, Finkelstein, Oppenheimer; and 3) distinctively Aryan names assumed to conceal the individual’s race, e.g., Montagu, Stewart, Brown. Resort to such disguises is an inveterate Jewish habit, probably dating from the time at which the race first developed its techniques for penetrating nations of goyim. And usually when the bearers of such names are not our contemporaries, the deceit can be detected only through the indiscretion of the Jews themselves. For example, the exemplary myth of Esther in its fuller text, preserved in the Septuagint, is warranted “authentic” (!) by pious Jews, and the names given are Dositheos, who is identified as a Jewish priest and Levite, his son, Ptolemaios (=Ptolemy), and the latter’s son, Lysimachos. All are good Greek names; the first, we happen to know, was frequently assumed by Jews and so might suggest some suspicions; the second is, of course, the name of the famous Macedonian dynasty; and the third is the honored name of a number of distinguished Greeks. If we saw the names out of the context, we should never doubt but that Ptolemy and Lysimachus were of pure Greek ancestry and, of course, Aryans.)

The cumulative effect of the data taken together is impressive, but it seems to us inconceivable that the Jews, having taken over the whole government of Russia in their Bolshevik revolution (28) and always conscious of their secret and vigilant antagonism toward the races that show a tendency to be less than perfectly docile, could ever have permitted themselves to lose a mastery attained with such long and persistent labor and intrigue. (Note that we instinctively credit the Jews as a race with an order of intelligence higher than that of Aryans, and think them exempt from the fatuity that led our race to throw away its power and revel in its own degradation and impotence.) The only plausible explanation is Robertson’s.

(28. Aryan observers who were on the scene in Russia at the time of the Bolshevik take-over assure us that fully 85% of the Bolsheviks in positions of authority were Jews, and we know that the most important of them were sent into Russia from Switzerland by the stupid Germans (who were resorting to what could be described as a species of germ-warfare, probably at the suggestion of Jews high in Kaiser Wilhelm’s government) and by Woodrow Wilson, who insisted that the British escort to Russia a shipload of venomous vermin from the East Side of New York City. A secret report to the U.S. State Department in 1919 (released from classification as secret in September 1960) lists the thirty foremost Bolshevik leaders, and identifies twenty-nine of them as Jews and one as a “Russian.” That one “Russian” exception was Ulyanov, alias Lenin, who, as is universally admitted, was a mongrel of mixed Jewish and Tatar (Turko-Mongolian) ancestry and without a drop of Russian blood. It is nugatory to inquire anxiously about details and to wonder, for example, whether the real name of “Zinoviev” was Apfelbaum. It would not really matter if all the official heads had been Russian, for credit for the operation must go to its architects. St. Paul’s in London is the work of Sir Christopher Wren and the mansion that now houses the Thomas Publishing Co. in Springfield, Illinois, is the work of Frank Lloyd Wright. The identity and race of the stone masons who worked on the former, and of the bricklayers who worked on the latter structure is irrelevant, as is the race of their various foremen.)

This explanation rests on two premises:

1) The Jews have a racial genius for infiltration, subversion, revolution, and destruction.

2) Their race is devoid of ability to organize and direct a viable society, whatever its type and whatever the political theory on which it is based. Having created chaos, the Jews can themselves survive in it only by enlisting the managerial talent of another race, commonly selecting administrators from the surviving (lower class) population of the nation they have just destroyed.

The first of these propositions is beyond question. It is verified by all history, for no nation deeply penetrated by Jews has long survived. It corresponds, furthermore, to their racial psyche, as frankly stated by some highly intelligent and remarkably candid members of the race, as, for example, by Samuel Roth in Jews Must Live (29) and by the eminent Maurice Samuel, (30) in his oft-quoted avowal:

“We Jews, the destroyers, will remain the destroyers for ever. Nothing that you will do will meet our needs and demands. We will forever destroy because we need a world of our own.”

(29. Roth’s Jews Must Live (New York, Golden Hind Press, 1934) has–for obvious reasons–disappeared from most or all libraries and become extremely rare. It is a book of 319 pages, including the frontispiece, etc.; about half of it was reprinted, Birmingham, Alabama, 1964, and is available from Liberty Bell Publications. Roth’s is by far the most complete description of the quotidian behavior of the great mass of ordinary Jews in business and social relations, and we all owe him gratitude for his honesty and admiration for his courage. Relevant here is the reaction of Jews when the lowly Aryans try to have a club or a hotel or a residential district of their own. The Jews yell about “discrimination” and by bluster and, if need be, secret financial pressure, force their way in, but when they have made it squalid and hideous with their vulgarity, they abandon it and flock back to their own colonies, preferably leaving the Aryan owners bankrupt and dispossessed. Such conduct would show malice in an Aryan, but, if we are objective, we must attribute it to the impulsion of a racial instinct that operates as automatically and as subconsciously as an uncorrupted Aryan’s instinctive admiration of certain forms of beauty.

There is an interesting analogy in the behavior of the Jews in ancient Alexandria, where a huge swarm of them, estimated at one million, took over a large part of the city and made it their vast and opulent ghetto, into which no Aryan, naturally, wanted to go. Not content with that, they perpetually swarmed through the rest of the city and were moved by their “righteousness” to break up the Greeks’ theatrical performances and athletic contests, harassing the goyim until they finally lost patience, whereupon the Jews rushed wailing to the reigning Ptolemy or Roman governor, complaining of “anti-Semitism” and “persecution,” and often, through the intrigues and financial power of wealthy and ostensibly civilized Jews, obtaining some punishment of the “intolerant” Greek population. Since the Jews, so far as is known, reaped no profits from these events and some of their rabble were injured or killed in the riots they provoked almost regularly every few years, their harassment of the Aryans must have been instinctive, rather than the result of some conscious plan or conspiracy.)

(30. See above, p. 45. The reprint is available from Liberty Bell Publications.)

One could corroborate Samuel’s statement by citing hundreds of Jewish writings, ancient and modern. An example from the early years of the Christian Era is one of the great Jewish hoaxes, the forged Sibylline Oracles, (31) which were disseminated (naturally with a forged certification that they were authentically Greek) to demoralize and subvert Graeco-Roman civilization by exciting dismaying apprehensions among the ignorant and credulous. No Aryan, I imagine, can read them without being appalled by the nihilistic lusts and venomous hatred of civilization that inspire them. A recent writer has cited, as an example of the innate nihilism of the Jewish soul,

“the Jewish apocalypse that the Fathers of the Church selected for inclusion in their appendix to the “Old Testament.” That wild phantasmagoria describes in loving detail all the disasters and torments with which Jesus will afflict and destroy the civilized peoples of the earth when he returns in glory from the clouds with a squad of sadistic angels. One should note the characteristic provision that goyim are not to be merely killed outright: they are to be made to suffer agonies for five months first. But what Lloyd Graham has properly called the “diabolical savagery” of the Jew God is not satisfied with exterminating all the goyim with every kind of torture a lurid imagination could invent. He destroys the land, the mountains, the sea, the whole earth; he destroys the sun and moon; and he rolls up the heavens like a scroll, presumably including even the most remote galaxies…Everything is annihilated. And all for the sake of Jesus’s pets, an elite of 144,000 male Jews who despise women. For these, to be sure, he creates a New Jerusalem, in which they will loaf happily for a thousand years.” (32)

One can only stand aghast at the ferocity of that lust to annihilate the whole universe!

(31. There are adequate editions, under the title Oracula Sibyllina, by Al Rzach (Vienna, 1891) and J. Geffcken (Leipzig, 1902, reprinted 1967). I have not seen the edition by A. Kurfess, Sibyllinische Wessagungen (Mnchen, 1951), which is said to contain a German translation. Some portions of the collection have been translated into English in various discussions of early Christianity, but I know of no complete translation of the long and miscellaneous collection. If there were one, persons whose minds are saturated with apocalyptic nonsense would undoubtedly find in it wonderful “prophecies” of the election of Reagan, the Jews’ terrorism in Lebanon, and perhaps the latest increase in postal rates. — A few old Greek reports of oracular statements are inserted here and there in the collection of forgeries to lend an air of authenticity to the hoax, of which the aim was to throw a scare into ignorant and weak-minded goyim, although some items encourage them to hope for a savior of some kind who will make all the earth his kingdom, with brotherhood and oodles of “world peace” for everyone, by teaching the wicked to venerate the living “Sons of the Great God.” It is usually difficult to date the various hariolations, but it seems that the earliest forgeries in the collection were perpetrated by Jews in Egypt during the Ptolemaic period: see John J. Collins, The Sibylline Oracles of Egyptian Judaism (Society of Biblical Literature, 1974).)

(32. Ralph Perier in Liberty Bell, August 1980, p. 20.)

Robertson’s second proposition is less patently true, but it may be significant that in the apocalypse we have just mentioned, when the New Jerusalem is lowered en blocfrom the newly-created sky, it is minutely described with what Frank Harris called “the insane Jew greed, which finds a sensual delight in mention of gold and silver, and diamonds and pearls and rubies,” but there is no practical provision for the Chosen Few of the Chosen People who are to spend the next thousand years in it. We may assume that they will be miraculously supplied with food and raiment, perhaps by hard-working angels, and can spend part of their time in swilling down food and drink; but the noble males will have no nasty females around, and we can only guess whether they will find succedaneous amusements. For the rest, they evidently will have nothing to occupy their idle hands and vacant minds–for a thousand years! It looks as though the author of the wild hariolation was intent only on the glorious destruction of the whole universe, and gave no thought to organization of the society that was to follow.

Jewish mythology has much to say about kingdoms and an empire of Solomon in the stolen land of Canaan, but archaeological data is too scanty to permit reconstruction of the historical basis for those tales. It is fairly certain, however, that when the wealthy Jews in Babylon betrayed the city to Cyrus the Great, the only non-Jew whom they ever called their christ, they made a deal with him for special privileges in his empire, for that is securely established by the Elephantine papyri. (33) The privileges seem to have included the establishment of a religious capital in Jerusalem, and a Biblical book called Esdras (Ezra) and Josephus (34) give us a vivid description of the great caravan of rich Jews who set out from Babylon, their chariots loaded with gold and silver, with thousands of their goy slaves trudging along behind, while hundreds of slave musicians went ahead, so that the caravan travelled “to the music of harps and flutes and the clashing of cymbals,” while the majority of Jews, who preferred to stay with business in Babylon, rejoiced and made merry. And when the immigrants reached Jerusalem, they began to dispossess the natives and kick them around, and they cunningly made their new Temple a fortress, as Herod was to do much later.

(33. Edited by A. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C. (Oxford, 1923). The Jews of Elephantine, who thought of themselves as perfectly orthodox and seem to have been so regarded by the newly-established Temple in Jerusalem, recognized as the chief of their gods one whom they called YW (probably pronounced Yu’ , a form that became Ia in the Septuagint) or YWH (thought to have been pronouncedYa’u ) and provided him with a female consort, ‘NT (probably identical with the Ugaritic-Canaanite goddess ‘Anath). In the fifth century B.C., therefore, the Jews had not yet generally adopted the henotheism which appears in most of the “Old Testament,” which they converted into monotheism when they came into contact with Graeco-Roman Stoicism and saw how expedient it would be to kidnap the Stoic’s Providence (animus mundi). Of course, the erudite Bezalel Porten, in his Archives from Elephantine (University of California, 1968), labors mightily and learnedly to disclaim the early polytheism of the orthodox Jews, once (p. 175) even going so far as to suggest that the magnanimous Jews subsidized the worship of the gods of Arameans in Elephantine as a “goodwill gesture”!)

(34. Antiq. Iud., XI, i-v, 1-183. There is an excellent edition and translation of this work by H. St. J. Thackeray, completed by Ralph Marcus, in the Loeb Library. Needless to say, the decrees of Cyrus and Darius quoted in the Biblical book and (with variations) by Josephus are forgeries.)

Under Persian protection, the Jews enjoyed autonomy, taxing and oppressing the hapless natives of Palestine (including the Samaritans, the native Jews, who vainly appealed to Persian justice), but when we hear next of them, (35) the high priest, John, murdered Jesus, his brother, right in the inner sanctuary of the temple, evidently as part of a civil disturbance so great that the local Persian governor had to intervene to restore order–and he, of course, was cursed for his pains, ostensibly because he wanted to peek into the sanctuary, where the Jews kept something they did not want goyim to see. (36) A spot of murder in the sanctuary did not seem worth noticing to the Jews of John’s faction, for he was undisturbed in the exercise of his pious office.

(35. Antiq. Iud., XI, vii, 297 sqq.)

(36. What the secret was is not known. The soldiers of Pompey reported they had seen in the sanctuary a statue of Yahweh with an ass’s head. They are unreliable witnesses, of course, but there is some uncertain corroboration of their report, and such theriomorphic gods were normal in Egypt, whence the Jews claimed to have come. We cannot affirm that the soldiers were right, but what we must do is avoid the knee-jerk reflexes of most historians, who ignore this and all comparable evidence because they know that God’s Holy People wouldn’t do nothin’ wrong. The Jews’ talk about the strict piety of their race is a hoax, and false even after they appropriated the monotheism of the Stoics. For a brief summary of some recent archaeological evidence, see the Scientific American, CCXXVIII #1 (Jan, 1973), pp. 80-87. It is uncertain whether the Jews who worshipped Helios and Apollo in their synagogues in the Third Century (A.D.) identified Yahweh with those gods or added them to their ceremonies to ingratiate themselves with the “pagans” among whom they were living.)

John was succeeded by his two sons, who seem to have shared the high priesthood until one brother decided to knock the other out on the grounds that he was married to a Samaritan bitch instead of a nice orthodox Jewess, and that started another smouldering civil war. And so it goes, on and on, endlessly, with the Jews in Palestine unable to keep peace among themselves; with their various factions appealing to the Seleucid Greeks or the Romans to restore order in favor of one faction, while all factions are seemingly united in hatred of the civilized but useful goyim, whom they try to play off against each other through elaborate intrigues; and with the distracted goyim unable to protect the Jews who are friendly to them and are accordingly murdered stealthily by sicarii, experts in the art of plunging daggers into a man’s back when he is off his guard.

In contrast to the perpetual disorders and outbreaks in Judaea, where the Jews enjoyed local autonomy, the majority of the Jews, scattered in enclaves throughout the civilized world (with the largest concentration of them probably in Babylon) and thus directly under the laws of the nations in which they had lodged themselves, seem to have lived in comparative peace with each other and with their hosts, except on the rare occasions on which there was an opportunity to betray a city to invaders or on which a self-appointed christ incited the Jewish rabble to insane outbreaks and massacres of the hated goyim.

After A.D. 70, the only autonomous or independent Jewish state that we can take into consideration is modern “Isra‰l.” (37) As everyone knows, the Jews extorted the Balfour Declaration from Britain as the price for stampeding American cattle into Europe in 1917, but since the English seemed to have had some scruple about betraying their Arab allies, the Jewish terrorists had to blow up and ambush quite a few stupid goyim before their new Zion was established formally in 1948 and God’s People could start oppressing, kicking, and butchering the natives. (38) On this artificial “nation,” which is, of course, supported by double taxation (39) of the world’s beasts of burden in the United States, see Robertson’s comments on it. It has its internal stresses, of which some reports are permitted to reach us, and is obviously held together only by its policy of steadily encroaching on the Semitic peoples around it and expanding its ill-gotten territory with military equipment donated by the American boobs. Living on money from the goyim and terroristic aggression, “Isra‰l” is certainly no proof that the Jews have the ability to organize and govern a state of their own.

(37. Not all Jews in Palestine followed the christ who caught the dozing Greeks and Romans off their guard in 132 and had great success in slaughtering them, but since the Romans were so bigoted that they disapproved of his cleverness, his ephemeral kingdom was quickly reduced to guerrilla bands hiding in the hills, and the christ never really governed any of the territory he claimed. — The Jews did infiltrate and take over the kingdom of the Khazars in the Eighth Century, but too little is known about its internal government to permit us to use it as an example. (Incidentally, the Khazar-theory, so dear to Christians who want to eat their cookie and have it too, will have to be abandoned, if we accept the elaborate haematological study by Professor A.E. Mourant and his assistants, The Genetics of the Jews (Oxford, 1978). His results show that the Jews, despite the great differences in physical appearance, form a single hybrid race, having an infusion of at least 5% to 10% of Negroid blood, wherever in the world they have taken up residence. ) — The old Jewish colony in India claims to have penetrated that sub-continent before 175 B.C., since it did not observe the five great Jewish festivals, all of which (despite fabricated claims to greater antiquity) were instituted after that date. Whether or not those Jews reached India so early, it is certain that they never formed a state of their own: Schifra Strizower, The Bene Israel of Bombay (Oxford, 1971). — Arthur J. Zuckerman’s long treatise, A Jewish Princedom in Feudal France, 768-900 (Columbia University, 1972), was based on tortuous inferences from illusory evidence, and his mighty Jewish realm in southern France and northern Spain was only a figment of his own imagination; see the review by Professor Bernard Bachrach in the American Historical Review, LXXVIII (1973), pp. 1440-41.)

(38. One wonders whether the British would have been so prejudiced as to become vexed, if the Jews had blown up their Parliament while it was in session. The first bomb planted in the building failed to explode and the Jewish High Command cancelled its orders before a second could be placed; see Avner, Memoirs of an Assassin (New York, 1960), pp. 104-121. His organization of “freedom fighters,” he says (p. 64), operated on the principle that “an Englishman would always be a filthy Goy, who could be killed for that reason alone.”)

(39. “Double taxation” because, in addition to the enormous subsidies that are openly and secretly sent to “Israel” by the Americans’ government, the vast sums that are “privately” remitted by Jews residing in the United States are also taken from the American people. No one dares to protest.)

There is much to be said for Robertson’s analysis, and we would accept his conclusion that the Russians have at last emancipated themselves–but reason revolts.

It is true that the Jews, who have always to be “persecuted” to conceal the extent of their actual control and power, are now screeching about “aunt-eye-see-mites” in Russia, but every few days we see the photographs of our real rulers, Kissinger, Armand Hammer, and others of the tribe, cuddling with Brezhnev and other real or supposed masters of Russia; American bankers are eager to supply the Soviet with seemingly unlimited quantities of the counterfeit currency manufactured by the Federal Reserve; and American farmers toil in their fields to supply the Soviets with all the grain and other foodstuffs they want. That, of course, may be just more of the looting to which the American serfs are accustomed. What really matters is the Jews’ apparent satisfaction at the results of their sabotage of our armed forces. Since Yockey wrote, our Army has become what he foresaw. Demoralized by the operations carried out in Korea and Vietnam to kill and main as many young Americans as possible while arranging defeats that would show the world how crazy and contemptible Americans are, (40) our remaining military officers are cynically trying to “stick it out” until they can retire on large pensions after twenty years. They are replaced by Jews, mulattos, and uniformed bureaucrats, whose notion of fighting is intriguing for promotion. If we look at our “fighting men,” we see a motley horde of louts, perverts, females, and savages sullenly awaiting the day when they can put the hated “honkies” in their place. Do you really think that with that rabble the United States could defeat and occupy Ireland? For that matter, could our ground troops occupy Cuba?

(40. It will be remembered that an American officer was even tried by court-martial and imprisoned for having killed some of the enemy in Vietnam. The court-martial was held by our Army in slavish and shameful obedience to the outcries of journalistic pimps whose employers were engaged in a concerted effort further to demoralize our armed forces, and the campaign involved downright lying about the conditions of warfare in Indo-China. For an understanding of what war is like in such territory with such a population, see William Wilson’s The L.B.J. Brigade (Los Angeles, Apocalypse, 1966_. The essential point is that the Vietnamese are naturally and by instinct as barbarous and treacherous as the crazed British and Americans made themselves when they repudiated all the canons of our civilization in the Jews’ Crusade Against Europe.)

Russia now has the largest and most modern navy in the world. Our navy, far inferior in equipment, sports mulatto Admirals who strut around in ostentatiously slovenly attire and lord it over their white underlings, who try to conceal their resentment at the degradation imposed on them. The British officers who inspected the Nimitz, our largest carrier, were amazed to discover that parts of the great ship are “off limits” to white officers so that the savages won’t kill them. The Nimitz is not a warship; it is a floating slum, on which, as a recent accident showed, the multi-racial warriors can’t stay off drugs long enough to perform a perfunctory naval exercise. One hears that on some of our smaller carriers that still have white officers in command, it is thought that the white crew could “get rid of the niggers” and get the ship into fighting trim.

Since the operation of aircraft requires skill and intelligence, our obsolete bombers and comparatively few modern fighting planes could be relied upon, barring sabotage by multi-racial ground crews commanded by such ornaments as a Jewess Major General. But the failure of the maladroit attempt to rescue the “hostages” that we had cravenly abandoned in Iran naturally suggested doubts as to our capabilities even in the air, although the ineptitude may have been ordered in Washington. In the event of a war with the Soviet, we could sacrifice our air force and inflict a small or moderate amount of damage.

As for intercontinental ballistic missiles, the chances are that we are now inferior to the Russians, while our country, as Yockey pointed out, is far more vulnerable than theirs.

At the time of writing, it looks as though the Jews intended to order the Americans to clear the way for a Jewish advance and occupation of the Semitic countries around “Isra‰l.” We could undoubtedly destroy the oil fields in Saudi Arabia and thus augment the fake “energy crisis” that is now used to chevy the boobs, and we could create by bombing from the air chaos in the other Semitic or partly Semitic countries–unless Russia intervened. That would mean a war with the Soviet, and, incidentally, if there were such a war, the Russians would certainly have to indulge, in sheer self-defence, their natural racial antipathy to Jews, all of the three million or more of them now in Soviet territory.

Since Yockey wrote, there has been one major alteration in the situation. The natural and inevitable racial hostility between the Russians, who are largely Aryan, and the Mongolian Chinese has evidently converted their original co”peration into active enmity. It is possible that fear of a Chinese invasion would deter the Russians from intervention in the Middle East, but we do not know enough about conditions inside both of the empires that we created as our powerful enemies to calculate the chances of that. The most we can say is that it does not now seem likely that the Russians would abandon a strategically important part of the globe to Zion. And if they do not, that means war with the Jews’ vassals, the United States.

In the event of such a war, the stooge in the White House could utter platitudes and talk about “saving the world for democracy,” but there is no slightest indication of a will to fight in a nation–if it still is a nation (41)–that has long been lousy with peace-lubbers and the like. The Russians would have all the advantages of a first strike, and could inflict some spectacular damage on our cities, and, as Yockey predicted, our rabble would immediately clamor for surrender and start a furious civil war, if Washington even hesitated to put into effect its cherished plans for a “strategic” capitulation.

(41. In the continuous avalanche of books, most of them worthless and many worse than worthless, that vertiginously descends from the presses these days, the few important works are buried in the mass and often carried to oblivion unnoticed, but I hope no one has overlooked the sagacious analysis of our society by Professor Andrew Hacker, The End of the American Era (New York, 1970). He concludes that the United States has become nothing more than a geographical area, inhabited by incompatible races and individuals who, rootless and bewildered, no longer have a common culture or even a common interest. “What was once a nation,” he says, “has become simply an aggregation of self-centered individuals.” Our civilization–Aryan civilization, although he does not use that naughty word–has been so eroded and rotted that the American majority has lost all cohesion and has become merely a colluvies of miniature minorities, each composed of no more than half a dozen persons with a common purpose. Therefore, he concludes, “Our history as a nation has reached its end,” and we have reached “a juncture at which it becomes pointless to call for rehabilitation or renewal.” The only question now is the exact date and form of the final catastrophe. I wish I could refute that conclusion.)

The only alternative is the remote possibility that the United States has some really horrendous secret weapon which has not been betrayed to the Soviet, but that possibility is very remote.

So with all this before us, we are asked to believe that the Russians have become independent? Preposterous! With the example of Germany before us, we all know how terrible is the vengeance that Yahweh’s Master Race inflicts on insubordinate goyim. If the Jews had been defied by the Russians, our armed forces would be drastically purged and every able-bodied white American below 40 would be conscripted and trained for the coming war. The Jews and their lackeys in all the media of communication would be frantically pumping a factitiously patriotic sludge in the faces of the boobs. Our holy men would be yelling in their pulpits about our Christian duty to smite the Antichrist in Moscow and help an omnipotent god who obviously cannot help himself. Our automobile plants would be again converted to the production of airplanes and tanks; and all our laboratories would be filled with “crash programmes” to devise more effective missiles and counter-missiles.

You have only to look around you to see how absurd is a suggestion that the Jews’ supremacy has been threatened in the Soviet! It’s simply unreasonable!

So we say, but we do not know. My only point here is that if the Jews no longer control the Soviet, the only explanation is the one advanced by Yockey and Robertson. Although they differ in their psychological analysis, they agree that the explanation must be some mental peculiarity in Yahweh’s Sons that impels them to conduct that would be irrational and insanely improvident in an Aryan.

* * *

To Be Continued…

For Further Reading

Previous post

Congoids and Spaceflight

Next post

Erasing the USS Liberty

No Comments Yet

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Slander, crude language, incivility, off-topic drift, or remarks that might harm National Vanguard or its users may be edited or deleted, even if unintentional. Comments may be edited for clarity or usage.