The Enemy of Our Enemies, part 6
A Critique of Francis Parker Yockey’s The Enemy of Europe (section 6)
by Revilo P. Oliver
The Dying and the Dead
IF YOCKEY had not been hounded to death by the Jews and were alive today, would he take again, without variation, the oath he took in 1946 when he left Wiesbaden, where he could no longer endure the obscene spectacle of the foul murders that the Americans were committing to please the Jews?
“I will go from one end to the other of my beloved Europe. I know well that I shall be going only to a churchyard, but I know, too, that the churchyard is dear, very dear, to me. Beloved dead lie buried there. Every stone over them, every bomb-crater containing the pulverized bones of these dead, tell me of a life once so ardently lived, so passionate a belief in its own achievements, its own truth, its own battles, its own knowledge, that I know, even now I know, that I shall fall down and kiss those stones, those endless ruins, this blood-drenched, sacred earth, and weep.
“But I surely also know that then, despite a convulsive rage at the perpetrators of this crime, I will again stand erect over this European graveyard and swear the solemn oath that to my last breath I will fight tooth and nail against those who attempted, in vain to be sure, to destroy the cradle of our Western Culture, with its unmatched accomplishments, with its deeds unique in the annals of Humanity. This, I, Francis Yockey, do solemnly swear!”
Do men die of broken hearts?
The physical scars of the Suicide of the West have been effaced. The ruins have been replaced by restorations or new structures that often do not show the grotesquely anti-human vulgarity of Jewish art. The intellectual and spiritual devastation, however, not only remains but grows apace. It reminds us of H. G. Wells’ anticipation of nuclear warfare: the atomic bombs he imagined produced a stead chain-reaction, so that their craters constantly grew large and spread wider, gnawing away the countryside, mile after mile. Or perhaps a better analogy would be an endemic disease that slowly but steadily destroys a dwindling and dying race.
Even a cursory survey of Europe today would require a volume, but we may permit ourselves a few hurried glimpses.
In Germany, the Jews did not insist on their original plan, set forth in Theodore Kaufman’s Germany Must Perish!, (62) that after their Huns had overwhelmed Germany, the surviving Germans would all be surgically sterilized to ensure the prompt extermination of a nation that had offended the Sons of the Covenant. That Final Solution might have seemed objectionable to “an-tie-see-mites.” So the good work was entrusted, in Germany as in other Aryan nations, to the demoralizing and disintegrating effects of what Yockey calls “culture-distortion”: “democracy” (i.e., government by organized crime), “education” (i.e., sabotage of children’s minds), usury, financial piracy, drug-addiction, promiscuity, miscegenation, mongrelization, promotion of superstition and irrationality, and the other blessings Americans now enjoy. That is working very well in Germany. A statistician has calculated that if all things continue as they now are, in ninety years the only living Germans will be senescent and past the age of reproduction.
(62. Newark, New Jersey, 1941; reprinted s.l.&a., and available from Liberty Bell Publications. Kaufman’s book is an excellent and most instructive specimen of Jewish thinking. He wrote before his tribe had invented the Holohoax, and so he can only scream that the Germans are militaristic and have produced such awfully wicked philosophers as Nietzsche; that makes them “an execrable people” and they must be exterminated, one and all. He prides himself on his tender heart, which makes him recommend that instead of having all the Germans massacred at once, the survivors, men, women, and children, should be herded together and sexually mutilated by surgeons (he even computes how many will be needed for the godly work) so that they cannot reproduce their damned species. In Schuld und Schicksal (Munich, 1962), J.G. Burg, a Jew who was born in Germany and lived throughout the war in Germany or adjacent territories, believes that Kaufman’s book was part of a concerted effort by the Jews’ master minds to exasperate the Germans and thus incite pogroms to help create “world opinion” for a war against Germany and for dispossession of the inhabitants of Palestine in favor of the Jews, and Burg supports his conclusion with photographic reproductions of documents in German and Yiddish. He quotes (p. 72) Chaim Weizmann as having said in 1934, “I would much rather see the annihilation of the Jews in Germany than failure to make Israel a land for the Jews.” Weizmann (who became the first president of “Isra‰l” when it was finally established in 1948) in October 1934 mobilized Jewish pressure on the British government to make Britain frustrate Hitler’s proposal that Jews who wished to leave Germany should be permitted to go to Palestine or whithersoever they wished, taking with them one thousand pounds sterling and goods to the value of 20,000 marks, the remainder of their holdings (if any) to be paid for in regular installments over a period of years. Several subsequent efforts by Hitler to help the Zionists attain their professed goal were frustrated by Britain and her allies, obviously in obedience to Jewish commands. It was the failure so to exasperate the Germans that they would resort to pogroms that made it necessary to invent the “Holocaust” hoax. It is noteworthy that, with the exception of Burg and a very few others, the Jews do not seem to regard as immoral the efforts of Weizmann and other Elders of Jewry to procure the “annihilation of the Jews in Germany,” who numbered about 500,000; presumably the sacrifice of those Jews would have been “good for the Jewish people,” and that is all that matters.)
In Germany, as in other Western nations, the Jews are resorting to pseudo-legal terrorism as well as mob violence to enforce belief in their “Holocaust” hoax, and they are more or less committed to the slovenly version of the tale that they used as a pretext for the obscene and savage murders committed by the British and Americans at Nuremberg. That fiction was an improvement on earlier versions, (63) but it relied on the perjury of a German traitor who had been an American spy throughout the war, and was so carelessly contrived that it could not resist critical examination. (64) Since the exposure of the great hoax, there has been a belated attempt to produce “witnesses,” who, I estimate, are as numerous as the individuals, many of them Aryans, who have reported their vacations aboard “flying saucers” or their confabulations with little green or cerise men from Mars or elsewhere. The principal burden of the attempts to enforce belief in the incredible, however, is the doctrine that it is an “insult to the Jewish people” to disbelieve whatever they choose to tell the lower races.
(63. According to the Courrier du Continent, a valuable little bulletin published at Lausanne, in its issue for May 1981, a delightful early version of the “Holocaust” hoax was given by a Jew residing in Sweden, Dr. Stefan Szende, in a book published at Zurich in 1944. According to this version, hundreds of thousands of Jews were exterminated by the cruel Germans at Belzec (a small town about twenty-eight miles south-southeast of Lublin), where the Germans had constructed a vast underground installation, including huge halls, built entirely of metal, with floors that could be raised or lowered by machinery. Each floor was a triumph of engineering, so large that several thousands of dear Jews could be packed on it, nude, at one time. The elevator then descended until the Jews were immersed into water to their waists, when a powerful electric current was introduced into the water, electrocuting them instantly. Then the elevator went up to a station at which a further application of electricity incinerated and presumably vaporized all the thousands of corpses, and the machine was ready for a new batch of several thousand. Presumably this version was thought too complimentary to the Germans’ famous talent for engineering and applied science, just as the claims that Germans had exterminated 40,000,000 or 12,000,000 Jews were considered a bit hazardous mathematically and the figure was reduced to the 6,000,000 in the current version.)
(64. See the works cited in note 45 supra.)
We should not err, as do so many anti-Jewish writers, by interpreting this Jewish terrorism in terms of our own mentality and so regarding it as a consciously evil fraud. As several Jews told the National Conference of Christians and Jews, “normal [i.e., Aryan] ethical standards” are “irrelevant” in such matters. (65) I do not profess to understand the Jewish mentality, but it may be that one aspect of it was revealed by Professor Eric Goldman of Princeton University, if he was correctly quoted as contending that history is a “weapon” to be employed for “determining people’s ideas and attitudes,” and that a respectable historian has a “responsibility…for making sure that he writes history in such a way as will bring about the kind of action that he wants.” Professor Goldman even made the frightening claim that his equation of history with propaganda was the view of “most historians [!].” (66) One can imagine no more total contrast to the Aryan conception of history as an effort to recover, as accurately as possible, the absolute truth about what actually happened: Von Ranke’s famous standard of a perfectly objective description of the past wie es eigentlich gewesen wäre, and James Harvey Robinson’s addendum that history should also determine objectively, if possible, wie es eigentlich geworden wäre. It is quite possible that to the Jewish mentality what actually happened appears completely irrelevant, and our interest in ascertaining historical truth may seem to be just another odd manifestation of our mental inferiority. The only thing that matters is what you can make your subjects believe, including, perhaps, the mass of your own race. To us, that seems reprehensible deception, but it is quite possible that to the Jewish mentality “truth” is whatever is good for God’s People. (67) That may be why Jewish forgeries and hoaxes seem to us so amazingly careless, and we wonder why their contrivers disdained the relatively small amount of work that would have been required to make their fabrication consistent and plausible: to them it seemed apodictic that people ought to believe what is good for the Jewish people without thinking about it. The tales in the “Old Testament,” for example, are attempts to simulate an historical record, but is seems never to have occurred to the rabbis to make them internally consistent and less absurd. (68) And the nonchalance appears today. When Professor Butz’s masterly exposure of the Jews’ Holy Hoax about the Germans was first published, Jews residing in the United States and holding professorships in American universities, who must surely have learned from observation of their goy colleagues what we consider to be the academic standards of integrity, began at once to denounce as “an infamous lie” a book of which they had never even seen a copy, and did so without even taking the trouble to ascertain its title, which they gave as “The Fabrication of a Hoax” or “The Holocaust Never Happened,” and urging that such disgrace to the academic profession be “rooted out” and presumably exterminated. The venomous hatred is, of course, only natural, but what is significant is that the learned professors did not take the two minutes of time for a phone call by which they could have learned the title of the book they were denouncing so hysterically. To us simple-minded Aryans, that seems amazing
(65. Reported in The Christian News; see note 55 supra.)
(66. Goldman is quoted by Professor James J. Marin in his section of the impressive biographical monument, Harry Elmer Barnes (Colorado Springs, Myles, 1968), p. 241. That Goldman may be right about the majority of persons who now call themselves historians is suggested by the fact that the once-respected American Historical Association, which turns a penny now and then by renting out its membership list, crawled on its yellow belly in abasement and apology when it found it had rented the list to the Institute for Historical Review in Torrance, California, which wickedly conducts historical research that does not bear the Kosher seal of approval.)
(67. This attitude carries over, of course, into the Judaic religions, such as Christianity with its ostentatious repudiation of the “wisdom of this world” and its exaltation of the believing nitwit above the rational and learned seekers of the truth. A good example is Augustine, who must have known that he was lying (by “pagan” standards, at least) when he assured his open-mouthed congregation that he, as a missionary, had saved the souls of a whole nation of Africans, who had eyes in their chests and mouths where a man’s neck would be but no heads, organs for which good Christians would presumably have no use. The same spirit appears in the numerous ecclesiastics who, during the Middle Ages, equipped a cathedral, monastery, or church with one of the many foreskins clipped from the infant Jesus when he was circumcized or a bottle of the Virgin Mary’s milk or another Holy Shroud. The contriver of the imposture could tell himself, perhaps sincerely, that he was helping save the souls of many yokels by stimulating the tourist trade and augmenting his revenues.)
(68 It is true that when the “Old Testament” tales, in the form that they had around the beginning of the first century B.C., were translated from Hebrew and Aramaic into the koine dialect of Greek, thus forming the Septuagint, the translators did make some superficial efforts to clean up some absurdities in addition to converting the stories to monotheism. For example, the author of the myth about Esther gave the stupid Persian king the name of Assueras or Ahasuerus or something like that, a purely fictional and non-Persian name. The translators make him Artaxerxes, which was safe enough, since there were three Persian monarchs of that name, who ruled between 484 and 337 B.C., and that sounded plausible to persons who had no real knowledge of Persian history. In the story of God’s unsuccessful attempt to murder Moses (Exod. 4.24), the translators reflected that it was undignified for the creator of Heaven and Earth to be lurking about a desert inn, and they accordingly made the terrorist “an agent of the Lord,” which is certainly less grotesque. The Hebrew text underwent some censorship after the Septuagint was made; for example, in the tale of Esther there were several deletions, including the passage in which Esther explains to Yahweh how repugnant to a Jewess is coitus with an uncircumcized man, although, of course, she remains faithful to her duty to manipulate in the interests of her race the goy whom she has attracted sexually.)
The continuous rewriting of history, so graphically described in George Orwell’s 1984, may seem to the racial mentality of Jews no more that a common-sense provision for ensuring “social justice” and the like. For example, a Jew recently wrote a book to prove that no tribe of savages ever practices anthropophagy: all storIes of cannibalism, except in a few cases of acute hunger (e.g., the Donner Party in California), were invented by the nasty “race prejudice” of the swinish Aryans. (69) I don’t know whether that claim is important for Jewish purposes, but if it is, it is surely a proof of the evils of “racism” that it isn’t feasible as yet to have all books of history and ethnology that mention cannibals dumped down a “memory hole” into ever-burning incinerators in all the libraries of the world. So far as I know, this attitude toward historical facts has never been systematically investigated, but Samuel Roth, the eminent and courageous Jew to whom we owe so much, touches on it in his references to the “Old Testament.” (70) But, I repeat, we must not be misled by the emotional binges of writers who hate Jews and cannot consider the problem objectively. Whatever tampering with facts may seem to us, we must remember that to the Jews it is simply an expression of their righteousness, however little we may be able to comprehend such an attitude. It is strictly comparable to the mentalities, equally alien and mysterious to us, that Professor Haas studied in his fundamental Destiny of the Mind. (71)
(69. Professor W. Arens, The Man-Eating Myth (Oxford University [!], 1980.)
(70. See note 29. Roth discussed the expurgations and falsifications of the stories on pp. 25-51, 57-62 of his book. These chapters and part of a chapter were omitted in the reprint to avoid sending Christian holy men into fits.)
(71. See above, p. 17. n. 19.)
So much has to be said in explanation of the recent imposition of righteousness in Germany. The puppet government in Bonn has ordered its courts to find that it is a criminal offense to doubt even the most impossible parts of the Holohoax, on the grounds that such doubt “denies to every Jew the respect to which he is entitled.” (72) Men are now serving long prison sentences for having dared to express such doubts, and recently the Bonn government’s Thought Police raided the homes of almost 500 Germans who were suspected of having in their possession books, pamphlets, or leaflets of which the Master Race disapproves. It is also a criminal offense in Germany to doubt the “authenticity” of “Anne Frank’s Diary,” a hoax contrived with such contempt for the Aryan mind that it contains such blatant internal contradictions that it could not impose on any reader who has even a modicum of critical intelligence. (73) And the exercise of normal intelligence is a criminal offense even though the Bonn government’s own criminological laboratory reported that the manuscript was written throughout in the hand of a single author, who made many of his revisions with a pen that had not been manufactured before the supposed “martyrdom” of the young Jewess who is supposed to have written it. And there are rumors that the Jews are demanding that all mail that comes into Germany be opened and censored, lest some vile correspondent abroad say something that might start ratiocination in the dumm Kopf of a cringing German. Such is the plight of Germany today.
(72. The decision of the German Supreme Court is quoted in the Jews’ “intellectual” periodical, Patterns of Prejudice, January 1980, pp. 32f. The article goes on to demand more stringent legislation in Germany to “plug the loopholes” in existing laws and make certain that Aryan curs do not even think improper thoughts.)
(73. If you want to make sure that you didn’t overlook any of the ridiculous contradictions in the yarn, see Ditlieb Felderer’s incisive booklet, Anne Frank’s Diary (Torrance, California, Institute for Historical Review, 1979).
The British have not yet sunk so low, but one has misgivings for the future. They destroyed their empire, sacrificed the lives of 357,000 persons, permanently depleting their racial vitality through the loss of much of their best blood, and inflicted painful and often irremediable wounds on 370,000 more; they disrupted their society and demoralized their whole population; and they impoverished themselves and their descendants, perhaps forever. All this they did to punish the Germans for having wanted to have a country of their own, and I wonder whether many Englishmen expected gratitude from the Jews. If they did, what were their sentiments when they read recently in William R. Perl’s The Four Front War that among the dastardly persecutors of God’s Race the vile British are second only to the vile Germans? Maurice Samuel was right: nothing that Aryans can do will ever satisfy his insatiable race.
Americans, remembering the old British tradition of gentlemen, are wont to assume that British politicians must be somehow morally superior to the gangsters of the great syndicate of organized crime that rules the United States. That is a mistake: the only difference is that the subordinate gangs, which stage competition on the lower levels, are called “Conservative” and “Labor,” instead of “Republican” and “Democratic.” Their activities correspond, even in detail, to the treason and looting that James Farrel has clearly described in his new book, The Judas Syndrome. (74)
(74. San Francisco, Fulton-Hall, 1980. The author skirts warily around the edges of the race problem, but he does consider the sheer insanity of importing into our overpopulated land ever growing hordes of black savages, mestizos from Puerto Rico, Cuba, and Mexico, and Mongoloids from southeast Asia in the guise of “refugees.” The obvious result will necessarily be a situation like that described in Jean Raspail’s “chilling novel about the end of the white world,” The Camp of the Saints, of which the English translation, published by Scribner’s in 1975, had so large a sale that it is now out-of-print in both cloth-bound and paperback editions. (Guess why!).)
The British, no less than the other Aryan nations, are driven by the death-wish that has been so deeply and perhaps ineradicably implanted in their subconscious minds. Not content with liquidating their empire, they began to import into their already overcrowded and overpopulated island hordes of anthropoid vermin from all over the world, from black savages to turban-wearing Asiatics. Any rational man could have predicted from the very first the inevitable consequence of the wholesale importation of racial enemies, but now, as well-organized mobs, directed by portable radios, surge through large quarters of British cities, burning and looting and killing, the Anglo-Saxon and Celtic boobs are astonished and listen, open-mouthed, to their government betrayers as they chatter about “unemployment” and, with almost incredible effrontery, claim that there are no “racial overtones” to race riots. The solution, of course, will be to surfeit the vermin with yet more blood sucked from the veins of the tax-paying serfs, who do not seem even to remember that they once had a country of their own. No one, so far as I have heard, has even dared to suggest what should be obvious even to schoolboys: the architects of the policy that imported the racial enemies and the loud-mouthed holy men and “humanitarians” who approved and endorsed that policy are either (a) conscious traitors, who intended the consequences of their acts, or (b) so feckless and feeble-minded that they must henceforth be excluded from influencing national policy in any way.
Traitors have imposed on the befuddled British a “Race Relations Act” to make certain that the white population, which is being dispossessed, does not openly resent the hordes of alien invaders. Englishmen are now in prison for having been so bold as to assert that their race is fit to live. And although the British, who are still a majority on what was once their island, are harassed by economic pressures and deafened by the clamor of their dervishes and the rest of the rabble of world-improvers, their bovine acceptance of their degradation makes one wonder whether the imprisoned men were not mistaken in the belief they expressed. Christians, of course, must be expected to obey the command of the Jew they worship: “Love your enemies and slaughter mine” (Luke 6.27 & 19.27). But Christians are a minority in Britain, estimated by competent observers at less than one-fifth of the white population. What of the other minority that should be dominant, the intellectually superior minority that has enjoyed the incomparable advantages of the British public schools and of Oxford or Cambridge? They evince no more comprehension of reality than the religious. The gods first make mad those whom they would destroy. And we can only behold with painful catharsis the tragedy of a nation which once had an empire on which the sun never set, and which, in Herculean madness, reduced itself to a mass of frightened sheep, huddled together on a small island on which the sun will someday set for the last time.
The “Race Relations Act,” to be sure, has some loopholes, and Englishmen who hire competent solicitors expert in such matters can still make some appeal to facts and reason without going to gaol, although, of course, they expose themselves to surreptitious chastisement. The Jews, needless to say, are agitating for legislation to “plug the loopholes” in the existing tyranny.
As mere specimens of the English way of life today, we may note the following. The Jews burned the printing establishment in Uckfield, Sussex, that had been printing magazines and books that do not bear the Kosher seal of approval. One of the arsonists, caught by his own arrogant overconfidence, pled the privilege of his race to destroy their enemies, but found that arson, even with such noble motives, was still technically illegal in Britain, and he received, from an apologetic magistrate, the minimum sentence. He was found to be an old hand in Yahweh’s service, having been identified as one of the burglars who, equipped with forged credentials as telephone repairmen, “cased” the apartment of David Irving, the author of The Destruction of Dresden, and were later caught red-handed in the burglary, equipped with tools from the British postoffices. The daily press in Britain suppressed mention of the deplorable arrest and trial of the high-minded arsonist. (75)
(75. The trial was concisely reported in the local Sussex Express, 17 April 1981. The newspaper, doubtless hoping to be thrown a bone, interpolated the remark: “To say the publications handed to the judge [to justify the arsonist’s pious deed] were ‘vile and evil’ was a masterly understatement,” The incident was also reported in the small weekly publication, Focal Point (London), 30 May, which inter alia observes that since the trail and sentencing took place hurriedly and without the knowledge of the victims of the arson, the purported specimens of their publications that were exhibited to the judge and newspaper may well have been forgeries. That would be only normal! My knowledge of the incident I next mention comes from a document prepared by the victim’s solicitor and letters from friends.
The masters of Britain naturally have their own corps of terrorists, special police, doubtless Englishmen willing to do anything for a small salary, paid by the bovine taxpayers. On 16 April 1981, these goons raided the apartment of an Anglo-Saxon in Brighton who, they said, was suspected of having in his possession a small booklet that did not show proper reverence for God’s Race. Since he was at his place of employment, as they doubtless knew, they smashed open the door of his apartment and turned everything upside down, looking vainly for the horrible booklet. Frustrated in their suspicions, they departed with a large package that doubtless contained his expensive camera, the money he had left in a drawer of his desk, and other fenceable property, leaving the broken door open, so that they could claim that someone must have entered the apartment after them. At latest information, the victim, just an Anglo-Saxon, to be sure, has vainly petitioned for redress.
Britain has indeed been blessed with righteousness. An Englishman’s home was once his castle; now it is his kennel.
We must cross the Channel to la belle France for the most accurate measure of Europe today. In the historic land of libert‚, Professor Robert Faurisson of the University of Lyons, maintaining the now antiquated tradition of intellectual integrity in academic circles, stated publicly that the Jews’ infamous hoax about the “six million” was a preposterous hoax. (76) Squads of Jews attacked him on the campus and burst into his classrooms to make it impossible for him to conduct classes, while the authorities of the university beamed approval. He and his publishers and even newspapers that had printed his replies to their defamation of him were prosecuted in the French courts for “insulting” the Jewish nation by doubting one of the lies by which it most conspicuously exhibits its racial solidarity as a super-organism. He has been beset by multiple prosecutions in the French courts, and he has thus far been sentenced to a public recantation of his veracity and fines that will amount to one million francs in the new currency (one hundred million in the old.) His total savings as a university professor with a family amount, he says, to about two thousand francs. And other prosecutions are still pending. The French system of justice doubtless hopes that it can drive the Aryan dog to suicide, but if that does not work, it will probably be wiser than the Inquisition that permitted Galileo to survive and will have Faurisson doused with gasoline and burned in a public square, while Jews dance merrily about the pyre.
(76. It is said that the Institute for Historical Review will publish English translations of Professor Faurisson’s major articles in an issue of its Journal. Presumably it will do so unless the Jews, who have made one attempt to burn down the building in which the Institute is located succeed in a new attempt.)
It is a nice irony that Professor Faurisson’s only support, so far as is known, comes from a Jew, who has disobeyed his race, and a few French “leftists.” He would doubtless have been supported by Professor Fran‡ois Duprat, if the Jews, as they openly boast, had not preferred to punish that man for his denial of the Holy Hoax by blowing up the automobile in which he and his wife were riding. The “New Right” in France, of which we once entertained some hopes, (77) has been taught a lesson by the Jews, who broke into one of their conferences and clubbed them, permanently crippling one man, while the French police looked on benevolently. The few French champions of Western science and rationality now slip quietly away from their universities or homes to meet, almost furtively, in secluded parts of the countryside, fearing raids by the Jews or the French police; and they are doing their best to pretend they never heard of Professor Faurisson. It’s embarrassing, but courage, mon ami, le pauvre diable n’est pas encore mort, mais il le sera bientôt.
It is easy to foresee the future. The simplest way out of the disconcerting fact that so many of the “six million” whom the Germans exterminated are alive and conspicuous in such capacities as that of the President of the “European Parliament” will be to claim that the Germans did indeed kill them, but they, being Yahweh’s pets, naturally arose from the dead after three days or some other appropriate period of time.
The next step is easy. As Douglas Reed observed in The Controversy of Zion, to the Jews “the world is still flat and Judah, its inheritant, is the center of the universe.” (78) Surely, there can be no greater insult to the Jewish nation that to doubt the word of its god, who made the world a flat cake of mud and placed above it the sun and moon, balls of fire floating in the upper atmosphere, so that he could stop them whenever he wanted to help his Holy People massacre the inhabitants of a country they wanted to steal. French courts of justice will surely repress the vile “racists” who cast doubt on Yahweh’s words, and a few million-franc fines, supplemented by burning a few incorrigibly sane Frenchmen at the stake, will establish righteousness throughout the beautiful land oû l’oui résonne.
(78. See above, note 4. The passage I have quoted occurs on p. 105 and continues, “The ruling sect has been able, in great measure, to impose this theory of life on the great nations of the West, as it originally inflicted The Law on the Judahites themselves.” Reed goes on to point out that Jews’ mission in this world is based on the promise Yahweh made to Isra‰l: “I will destroy all the people to whom thou shalt come,” (Exod. 23.27). Reed’s is, on the whole, an excellent book, marred only by some charitable efforts to temper the wind for Jesus’s lambs. Incidentally, he makes the interesting suggestion (p. 207) that Herzl, the founder of modern Zionism (see note 51 supra) whom Samuel Roth described as “probably the first honest Jew in the pubic life of the world in two thousand years,” may have been eliminated by Jews who wanted to take over and pervert his Zionist movement.)
And then one more step. Yahweh told Moses, “I have made thee a god to Pharaoh [i.e., the unnamed king of the Egyptian goyim].” Now it is only proper that the “Sons of the Living God” should be the gods of the lower races and be worshipped by them. It requires no great effort of the imagination to picture thousands of French men and women assembled in Notre Dame, in obedience to the orders of their courts and government, to worship bare-footed rabbis seated on the alters. (79) And the choir will sing the inspired words of the prophecy: “And Israel shall rule the world forever.
(79. Ralph Perier in Liberty Bell, November 1980, p. 22, has called attention to the extraordinary emotional fixation of the Jews, as shown in passages he cites from both the “Old Testament” and the Dead Sea Scrolls, which demands not only that other races, and especially Aryans, shall become their abject slaves, but shall demonstrate their submission by using their tongues to lick the dirt from the Jews’ bare feet. No other race, so far as I know, has ever shown that bizarre lust. Perier also quotes, “Israel shall rule the world forever,” from Gaster’s translation of the Dead Sea Scriptures, where it is the climax of an imagined war in which the Greeks and Romans (i.e., Aryans) are totally exterminated, but also survive to do the desired licking.)
Fantastic? Less so than what has now actually happened in Germany, Britain, and France would have seemed before the Suicide of Europe.
Such is a hurried bird’s-eye view of the continent that was, for Yockey, “the sacred soil of Europe,” the homeland of our civilization. He was young when he was hounded to death, and he did not live to see the Europe of today. Perhaps we should say of him, as Tacitus said of Agricola, felix opportunitate mortis.
Yockey’s hopes and his striving seem vain and futile in the desolation of today. He appealed to a manhood and an intelligence that had died on a thousand battlefields and have become bodiless wraiths, drifting on the shifting mists of time. But he will be remembered–if there are any to remember us–as a man who sought to resurrect Europe and, in the end, gave his life for the dead. His memory will be honored in the future–if we have a future–as that of a man whose lucid mind enabled him to see the vapidity of the verbiage about “world peace,” brotherhood,” “human rights,” and the rest of the hallucinatory fictions that are used by evangelists, politicians, and other swindlers to benumb the minds of their victims. He was a man who had the courage to state the grim truth that a nation’s survival depends on its spiritual cohesion and its will to power–to naked, undisguised, unmitigated power, power over others.
A nation, a civilization, a race that has lost the will to conquer and dominate has lost its will to live–has lost the vitality that makes it fit to live in a world in which the inexorable laws of nature provide that only the strong and resolute shall survive. Yockey summoned our race to put down its opium-pipes and look outside its den of dreams to the real world, in which it will soon have no choice but to fight belatedly or perish ignominiously. It was not his fault that the drugged minds could not respond, could not comprehend.
After Imperium was republished by The Truth Seeker (New York) in 1962, Yockey’s work, which had been almost completely suppressed and was known only to the few individuals who had the luck to find, and the means to purchase, copies of books that had become extremely rare, became more widely known and accessible to those who wished to know it. It inspired untrammeled minds.
In the late 1960s, some youthful enthusiasts formed the Francis Parker Yockey Society, and, since it was not kept secret, they, few as they were, alarmed the boobherds of more than one local newspaper, ever on the watch for an outbreak of common sense. It was the young men’s intention to erect a monument to Yockey, and, after much deliberation, they decided it should bear these words:
TO THE MEMORY OF FRANCIS PARKER YOCKEY
AUTHOR OF IMPERIUM
WHO FOUGHT THE GOOD FIGHT TO THE BITTER END
Ço sent Rodlanz que la mort l’entreprent, …
Sour l’erbe vert si s’est colchiez adenz,
Dessoz lui met s’espede e l’olifant.
The lines from the great Chanson may be translated thus:
And then, when Roland felt death coming upon him, he
lay down on the green grass, placing his sword and his horn
beneath his body, and with his face against the earth.
Epilogue, the Erniyes
In 1945, in the devastated and desolate land of a nation of heroes, the American Army forced a German physician to save the life of a captive who had tried to commit suicide. The wretched man, who had surrendered in the mistaken belief that he was surrendering to civilized human beings, had contrived to find a piece of wire and twist it tightly about his throat in the hope of escaping the long, lingering, and exquisite tortures for which the self-righteous sadists reserved him.
The German physician grimly did what he was compelled to do, but he was a man. He looked the commanding officer in the eye and said calmly: “You Americans have done more than violate the law of nations. You have committed hybris. God will punish you, and if there is no god, Nature will.”
Yes, Nature will.
To Americans who do not enjoy leading a precarious and degraded existence in the filth and stench of a multi-racial society, it will seem that Nature has already done so. But, in the vernacular phrase, they haven’t seen anything yet.
When the syndicate of organized crime that governs the witless and spineless Americans began to tax the serfs for “aid” to “underdeveloped nations,” rushing American food and medical skill to accelerate the savages’ already prodigious rate of breeding, giving them American equipment and American engineers to industrialize their jungles, and naturally inciting them to rape and murder the Aryans caught in the newly independent “nations,” the ineluctable consequences of that policy were obvious to every man who could perform simple arithmetical calculations.
I did no more that state a patent fact, long known to thoughtful observers, when, in an article published in 1963, (80) I wrote: “At the present rate, the globe, sometime between A.D. 2000 and 2005–that is to say, within forty years–will be infested by 5,000,000,000 anatomically human creatures, the maximum number for which food can be supplied by even the most intensive cultivation. And then, to keep the globe inhabitable at that bare subsistence level, it will be necessary to kill every year more people than now live in the United States–kill them with atomic bombs or clubs, as may be most convenient.”
It will be less than twenty years now.
(80. American Opinion, December 1963, p. 23. The fact was obvious from the “exponential” increase in the world’s population of non-Aryans and the geographic determination of the amount of arable land on the planet. But the ineluctable process of nature could have been, and was, foreseen long before the “population explosion” actually occurred. Sixty-seven years ago, before the First World War and while our race’s absolute superiority and dominion over the planet seemed assured forever, the great and forgotten American philosopher, Correa Moylan Walsh, wrote in the first volume of his Climax of Civilization: “A return will set in of the re-active pressure of nature upon mankind…. The struggle for existence will again become sharp and bitter…. But woe to the people which has not men that will stand up and fight without flinching. Those countries where the moral decay shall have gone deepest, where the proved stock shall have died out and given way to poor stock, where the greatest effeminization of men shall have taken place (for the masculinization of women will be no compensation), where the strong and the wise and the shrewd shall gain no more of wealth, power, and influence than the weak, silly, and incompetent, all being equal,–those will go to the wall. And when this fate shall have overtaken most of our western white men’s countries, our cycle of civilization will be completed.”)
Meanwhile, the Americans, eager to show they have elephant-sized hearts and canary-sized brains, are importing into their already overpopulated and befouled country hordes of racial enemies who quite frankly boast that they will take over for themselves entire states and groups of states, expelling or killing the stupid Aryans, for whose idiotic generosity they have a supreme and justified contempt. For the details, I must again refer you to James Farrell’s The Judas Syndrome. (81)
(81. See above, note 74. Since savages are constantly pouring into Florida from Haiti, I cannot forebear to notice a little-known historical fact. Abraham Lincoln, who was not a man without foresight and conscience, although he presided over the fratricidal war of aggression that ended the American Republic, actually began to put into practice his determination to export all Blacks from this country. On 31 December 1862, he approved contracts with entrepreneurs, chiefly from financial circles in New York City, to export 5000 Negroes to Haiti and resettle them there, at a cost to the government of fifty dollars a head. The contracts were carried out, but many of the Blacks were subsequently brought back to this country by “do-gooders” eager to afflict the white population.)
And now the promoters of “aid” to “underdeveloped nations” have discovered what they knew all along, that they hastened a catastrophe from which the opium of superstition and maudlin sentimentality will provide no refuge. The Club of Rome, which had been busy fostering international “understanding” and international looting, hired experts from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to report on “the predicament of mankind,” and published the results in The Limits to Growth (London, 1972). What emerges from the report is a desperate hope that catastrophe can be postponed by de-industrializing the “emergent nations” and finding ways to kill off a large part of the prolific anthropoids, so that global starvation will not begin in 2000. There are many graphs to show the possible effects of miracles: if, for example, the yield of food by arable land were doubled by some inconceivable means, the starvation crisis could be postponed to 2024. The shock to tender minds is cushioned by speculations about the invention of “perfect” means of birth control, which will be made “available” to everyone–“available” being an euphemism for making the use of such means compulsory, which, being impossible, in turn means mandatory abortions, which are equally impossible of application to the most prolific races–and that makes nonsense of the bland assumption that all races are equal and are to be equally reduced. Talk about reducing the birth rate globally is mere verbiage: everyone who knows anything about the non-white races (except Jews) knows that the only practical means of control requires an enormous increase in the death-rate.
The Club of Rome’s report also made projections that simply ignored the crucial question of food, and these showed that even if manna showered from the skies, essentially the same crisis and struggle for life would occur at approximately the same time from the exhaustion of the natural resources of our insanely exploited and ravaged earth, and also that if that factor be disregarded, the planet is being so polluted by its anthropoid parasites that, at no distant date, it will cease to sustain their life.
Some glimmering of reality penetrated even the fog in Washington and produced the Global 2000 report which, officially endorsed by the Secretary of State, calls for the elimination of two billion (2,000,000,000) human beings by the year 2000 to avert the otherwise inevitable chaos. The report is naturally evoking screams from the holy men, who like to orate about the day when Jesus will pop out of the clouds and raise Hell, but naturally cannot bear to think about reality, and from a wide variety of others, who find such ideas bad for their businesses. (82) There is much that can be criticized adversely in the report, but not the statistics, and it is the statistics that excite hysterical denials on the grounds that they are unpleasant. The gang in Washington is, of course, trying to use the report for its own purposes, but that is quite another matter.
(82. A particularly odd yell of blind indignation is the booklet, Global 2000, published by the “National Democratic Policy Committee” = the “U.S. Labor Party” = the mysteriously financed operations of one Lyndon LaRouche. The booklet is well worth reading for its sophistries.)
One thing is quite certain: the population of the globe is going to be drastically reduced within the next twenty years as the struggle for life begins in earnest. Christians will, no doubt, go on bleating about “the sanctity of human life,” especially the lowest forms of it, but they might as well expound that silly notion, which only our race has ever taken seriously, (83) to a typhoon or an erupting volcano. The forces of nature do not listen to idle talk. Neither do mammals who must kill or be killed–unless they are degenerate and have lost the will to live.
(83. The even more absolute doctrine of the “sanctity of all life” appeared in the “Orthodox” religions of India and Buddhism while the Aryans were still dominant. In polyphyletic India of today, individuals who humanely avoid injuring the lice they remove from their hair associate with individuals who are votaries of Kali and believe that the highest religious merit is obtained by treacherously murdering a man whose confidence they have cleverly won. Such is the charming diversity of a multi-racial society.)
The population of the globe is going to be drastically reduced, and in the course of that reduction, it is virtually certain that the inferior races will become extinct, as Darwin foresaw, although not in the way he anticipated. (84) The only question is which races will not survive the inevitable war for survival.
(84. See above, note 3.)
Every species of mammal capable of conscious thought thinks itself as in some way superior, but a claim to racial superiority is particularly congenial to our race, which for long had proof of it in the mastery of the whole world which it suicidally discarded. Aryans still pride themselves on the superiority of their civilization, and it is undoubtedly superior, aesthetically, morally, intellectually, i.e., in terms of its own values, so that ‘superiority’ is merely a tautology. We must face the brutal fact that the only real superiority is biological, and is shown by a species’ ability to survive and increase at the expense of others.
The colored races naturally multiply as do rabbits. In the coming struggle for survival they may eat each other, if they run out of white meat, but they will breed so rapidly that they will survive, unless a superior power makes an intensive effort to exterminate them.
The Jews, whose racial cohesion has made them a super-organism, are undoubtedly a superior species. Beginning as a wretched gang of marauders, they, in only 2500 years, scattered throughout the world while retaining with undeviating concentration the super-organic unity of their purpose, and achieved virtual mastery of the globe. That you may disapprove of their methods or their character is irrelevant. They have given proof of biological superiority. One wonders whether that superiority will enable them to consummate their total triumph or whether the super-organism is too inflexible, its instincts too fixed and rigid to cope with an entirely novel situation, so that the multiplex organism will perish in the chaos it has created, exulting, perhaps, in the total destruction in which it will also be destroyed.
So far as one can extrapolate from the present, disregarding our pathetic hopes for a psychological and biological miracle, there is one race which, by its own fatuity and degeneracy, seems likely to become extinct less than a century after it was master of the world.
* * *