Counter-Currents
2,045 words
Edited by Kerry Bolton
Editor’s Preface:
Yockey wrote this essay in 1952 under his nom-de-plume, Ulick Varange. It appeared in two parts in Frontfighter, the newsletter of the European Liberation Front, issue no. 22, March, and issue no. 23, April, 1952. Only the second part has been preserved, while the extracts and comments from the first part are taken from an FBI analysis.
Yockey here advocated a “neutralist” line in regard to the “Cold War,” and states that neither the “Communist” (i.e. “Jewish”) nor the “military” “factions” running the USA were friends of Europe.
US Intelligence services would have had particular interest in Yockey at this time, and in regard to these ideas, because there was widespread concern among the Allies of a resurgent German nationalism under the leadership of war hero Major General Otto Ernst Remer and the Socialist Reich Party. Remer was also advocating a “neutralist” position for Germany.
An FBI report on Yockey dated November 24, 1953 alludes to Yockey’s association with Remer and the Socialist Reich Party and to Yockey being “anti-United States.” The Report also cites one of Yockey’s key US contacts, Frederick C. F. Weiss, as possibly accepting funds from Soviet sources and as having rejected an anti-Soviet stance. The FBI Report also cites Yockey as having advocated even as early as 1949 an underground resistance movement in Germany which would collaborate with the USSR to oppose the Allied Occupation authorities.
In December 1952, only about half a year after writing “America’s Two Political Factions,” Yockey had attended the so-called “Treason Trial” in Prague, Czechoslovakia, which he regarded as the epochal turning point in Russia’s total break with Jewish world hegemony. The Jewish and military factions were soon conjoined, and many from the “Jewish faction” who had pursued a Communist course became some of America’s most avoid champions of opposition to the USSR during the Cold War.
On the other hand, “neutralist” Third World regimes, such as that of Nehru, whom Yockey had previously criticized as being pro-communist, would be praised a few years later for their statesmanship in opposing Judaeo-American hegemony. Today the US military acts as the policing arm of what Yockey had once called the “Jewish,” communistic faction. There is no longer any differentiation.
Part 1
FBI summary of Part One, from Chicago, Report dates July 20, 1953 (CG 100-25647), made by Agent Lloyd O. Bogstad.
The author states that Europe and South Americans are baffled by the United states’ rapid change in foreign policy.
Contained on page one:
The American inner-political scene is dominated by two factions, neither of which at this moment exercises dictatorship. The first, presently the more important of the two, is the Jewish or Communist faction (the two words are interchangeable in America). It is well organized, coherent, conscious of its power, conscious in its policy. It knows its objective, and even when temporarily set back, it continually return to it. The second is the Army or military faction.
VARANGE believes that the Jewish politics is everywhere and that it spells the destruction of Western civilization. He believes the Jews were instrumental in giving Communist spy HISS a light sentence as were the Communist leaders who were sentenced in this country.
Found on page two:
An “anti-communist” law required all Communists to register, but no penal provision was attached to it. It was defied by all communists with impunity. All this testifies to the efficiency of the Communist organization in America.
Contained on page two:
The Cabinet minister FORRESTAL, who resisted the official policy vis-à-vis Israel, was killed, and his murder portrayed as suicide. It is now known everywhere that shortly before his death, FORRESTAL was warned by BARUCH to abandon his resistance to the Israel policy.
The author believes that the Army is lacking in political plans. The top military leaders do what they are told, but they do not know or realize the objective is of what they are doing.
On page four:
There are traitors within it like EISENHOWER and the infamous MARSHALL. It was MARSHALL who, in 1941, when he was chief of staff, brought about the Pearl Harbor disaster. Though knowing when and where the attack was coming, he absented himself from his post and deliberately refrained alerting the garrison at Hawaii. For this direct treason, he received a promotion.
American foreign policy has become weaker and weaker because of the actions of our military in Europe and Korea.
The author believes that America cannot help Europe. Europe must help itself and develop its own resources.
Noted on page six:
Europe will not fight under the banner of its enemy.
Part Two
It was the military faction which insisted on the economic help to the Serbian butcher Tito, whose revolt against Moscow occurred through no connivance of the Washington regime, and who was at first denounced in the American press. It was the military faction which issued on the imposition of a war-alliance on Greece and Turkey. It was the military faction which intervened in Korea – it will be remembered that Acheson refused all comment during the early days of the war in Korea, for this Communist faction was still fighting hard against American intention. It is the military faction which is still fighting for the imposition of an alliance which Spain, and the Communist faction continues to sabotage all efforts to make this real.
With the acknowledgement of the existence, the identity, and the interests of these two factions, the otherwise insoluble riddle of American policy becomes clear. Thus, in the Russian blockade of Berlin, summer 1948, the military faction wanted to send armed convoys through. This of course would have brought about a political defeat for Russia, since the Russians were in no position to challenge such a military demonstration. Therefore the Communist faction in Washington threw all its weight against such a move. The final result was the “air-lift,” a compromise between the two factions, which saved Russia’s face and destroyed American military prestige in Europe. Europeans no longer believe, even the democrats and America-lovers, that America has either the will or the guts to oppose Russia. It is the military faction, again, which is reoccupying prostrate Europe and going through the forms of rebuilding European military forces, including the German army. And it is the Communist faction which opposes, now openly, in debate and propaganda, now secretly, in sabotage and undermining, all these measures. Here is manifest the terrible weakness of this politically-unconscious military faction: at the very head of its wishful thinking so-called European army, it allows the enemy Eisenhower to make sure that under his regime at least, there will be no real European army. Eisenhower belongs by his personal history to the Jewish-communist faction, and he could no more be relied on to fight Russia than could Nehru or Togliatti.
The Communist faction ties the hands of the American forces in the Chinese war, refuses to use superior atomic weapons against the Communist enemy, and talks even now, in the American press, of the wisdom and expediency of extending diplomatic recognition to China in the middle of a war. Similarly, during the “air lift,” friendly diplomatic conversations continually went on between Communists from Moscow and State department Communists from Washington, to keep everything within bounds and make sure that all incidents would be minimized in order to assure Russia’s diplomatic victory.
The only question of interest to us is: what is the significance of these two factions to Europe? The objective of the Communist-Jewish faction is the destruction of the Western Civilization, including America. The military faction has no political objective whatever; its purely military objective is preparation of a successful war against Russia, securing in the process all possible strong points and bases, and utilizing to bring about its victory the man-power of Europe. In its official doctrinal publications, this faction has referred to the former nations of Europe as “pawns” in the war-front against Russia. The military faction at the moment is stronger than it has been at any time since the War, as shown by forcing through the Spanish rapprochement and by its progressive reoccupation of Europe. Its conception of Europe is a heavily industrialized area of a numerous population, politically and spiritually will-less, whose only rational formation is that of a group of mutually hostile protectorates, united only in common allegiance to America. Europe’s main function in this estimate is that of furnishing military support – principally in manpower – to the plans of the American generalate in its self-imposed task of conquering the world. Pari passu with the American reoccupation of Europe proceeds an intensification of the persecution of European nationalist elements: in France and Belgium the secret police are ordered by the American colonial administration to discover “plots” and to make arrests; in Rome 35 are arrested by the Churchill regime; in Germany a new wave of repression is begun by Adenauer. All this is testimony to the spiritual leadership of the Liberation Front, the first European nationalist reorganization, whose policy is gradually being adopted all over Europe by the elements of tomorrow, and is therefore being attacked all the more bitterly by the elements of yesterday.
Both factions mean the subjection of Europe, both mean the thwarting of its organic destiny, both are animated by jealousy of Europe and the wish to prevent the coming Imperium of Europe. Future developments in the intensifying struggle between these two factions are unpredictable. In no case can Europeans play the role of spectators in a foreign struggle rather than actors in the poetry of their own destiny. Let no misguided European beguile himself into an utterly misplaced sympathy with the American generalate as an American nationalist group, for this it most certainly is not. It is no more nationalist than is the Ford assembly line at Dearborn. Nationalist means: placing the interests of one’s nation before the interests of a class, and before the interests of other nations; it is a political word, and in the political realm, it cannot be repeated too often, the American generalate is unconscious. It would as soon fight Europe as China – in fact a comparison of American tactics in 1941–45 and in 1950–51 indicates it would rather fight Europe; it would as soon bombard London as Berlin, Buenos Aires as Moscow. These generals are not men of the stamp as Molkte, Schlieffen, and Clausewitz, but rather the stamp of Henry Ford. Their contribution to warfare is the assembly line; their military faith is not in morale, love of Fatherland and iron discipline, but the belief that with enough industrial production Destiny itself can be set aside and History be made to come out the end of a tube.
The true American nationalism is not constituted as a party, nor a faction, and not even yet as a movement. It is still a mere feeling distributed among a certain spiritual level of the American population. This American nationalism is a spirit that recognizes America’s colonial status vis-à-vis Europe that has no wish to destroy the mother-soil and father-culture of Europe that could be counted upon always to assist Europe against Asia and the world Colored Revolution. This America still existed politically in 1900 and in that year sent an expeditionary force to china, there to act in concert with European forces, in the smashing of the Boxer Rebellion, the whose under the command of a German field marshal. But at this critical moment of our destiny, this American has no political existence. Europe cannot look to it for hope, leaderless, unorganized, unconscious as it is.
Friendless and alone, Europe is thrown upon its own resources for its own salvation. But these resources are mightier than all the accumulations of matter, and biological units to operate the matter, of which the enemy disposes. In addition to its unassailable superiority in will, instincts, and intelligence, Europe possesses within it that which the enemy cannot even understand, the invincible Destiny of the Western Civilization. The arrogant products of America’s human assembly line who call themselves at present the Allied high command have no past, they contain no unifying Inner Imperative, no Idea, they represent no Nation and no State, they have no future.
At this moment both of America’s factions are the enemy of Europe. Europe will not fight under the banner of its enemy.
11 comments
Along with Francis Parker Yockey, another noteworthy proponent of neutralism was Maurice Bardèche, who addressed this subject in L’oeuf de Christophe Colomb, lettre à un sénateur d’Amérique (Paris: Les Sept Couleur, 1951). I should perhaps write more about this book later, for it’s extremely good, and not many readers of Counter-Currents can read French.
Something on Bardèche would I am sure be of much interest. Apart from the pioneering effort of The Scorpion, it seems that only in the last few years has a decent New Right press developed in English, and there’s alot to do for those who are multi-lingual (which I am not). For many years the Anglophone Right seems to have been innundated with complete banality, and is only now recoverign with projects like C-C, Black Front Press, and Arktos Media.
Maurice Bardèche’s analysis of anti-fascism as a Trojan horse for communism is something I should perhaps write about. As he wrote: “It was said first of all that it was necessary to defend oneself against fascism. This purely negative consign was only a framework: little by little, this framework was filled, it ended by containing everything that was contrary to fascism. And, as fascism was essentially the defense of a healthy nation against Bolshevik infiltration, anti-fascism exalted and imposed everything that was contrary to this instinct of conservation. In the measure that fascism was health and strength, anti-fascism was the contrary of health and strength.” (L’oeuf de Christophe Colomb, Paris, Déterna, 2002, p. 25.) Needless to say, the United States was gravely infected by anti-fascism.
Developing a mature body of thought and media will require a wide range of work. It definitely requires more work with regard to translation, but it also requires more work with regard to adaptation and popularization, so that ideas from foreign intellectual and political movements (such as fascism, revolutionary nationalism, and the Nouvelle Droite) are genuinely influential and useful. One could say that these are both forms of translation, and that the latter is even more important and more difficult than the former.
It is imperative to establish synergies between these two forms of translation. I’d like know what Greg Johnson and John Morgan think on these matters. Of course, it is difficult to establish a balance when there is so much work to do and the means are so meagre. There are few writers and translators, work is hardly remunerative, and it is necessary to publish works on the basis of their availability and the ability to publish and sell them. There are so many works that ought to be published, but have yet to be written, or to be translated, or to find a receptive market. It is not possible to coordinate writers as if they were construction workers. It is necessary to think and act in terms of effective cultural, media, and commercial activity. Establishing cultural hegemony requires much more than simply publishing material.
Ideas from foreign movements need to be properly “naturalized.” Robert Bidelaux and Ian Jeffries’ book, A History of Eastern Europe: Crisis and Change (London: Routledge, 1998), has a passage regarding Wyclif’s influence on Jan Hus that is worth pondering regarding the adaptation of foreign ideas (pp. 221–222):
“. . . Hus did not simply appropriate Wyclif’s ideas. The impact of the latter on the Hussite movement should be viewed, not as cause and effect, but in terms of parallel perceptions of (and responses to) the problems of fourteenth-century Catholic Christendom. ‘Hus did copy whole pages and passages of Wyclif into his own works,’ but that would hardly have happened had not ‘the heritage of the Bohemian religious movement’ predisposed him to do so. Plagiarism and originality were viewed differently in those days. The cult of originality had not developed and plagiarism was quite commonplace, even in Oxford! According to Betts, the passages that Hus copied are ‘not so much evidence of Hus’s lack of originality . . . as evidence that the disease from which Bohemia was suffering was general.’ Furthermore, Kaminsky points out that Hus copied ‘not slavishly but freely and creatively, disposing over the whole Wyclifite corpus with consummate skill . . . and converting the very difficult, often chaotic works of Wyclif into powerful, effective books.’
“Indeed, receptivity to foreign ideas is usually dependent not only on the intrinsic merits of the ideas in question but also of the responsiveness, creativity and adaptability of the receiver, whose importance in the propagation of ideas is often underrated. It is very significant that Wyclif’s ideas, as assimilated into the Hussite movement, strongly contributed to the emergence of a country-wide religious reformation which also had substantial repercussions in adjacent Hungary and Poland, whereas in their original forms they merely caused a few ripples on the English millpond. It seems that Bohemia not only provided more fertile soil but also grafted Wyclif’s ideas on to various indigenous plants and developed them into more transformative hybrids.”
Bidelaux and Jeffries quite rightly emphasize the importance of “the responsiveness, creativity and adaptability of the receiver” in relation to the reception and promotion of ideas from foreign sources. As Antoine de Rivarol put it: “Ideas are a capital that bears interest only in the hands of talent.”
As a Yockeyist, I would warn against a purely anti-Semitic reading of this brilliant piece. For unlike the Jew-obsessed numbskulls who dominate our ‘movement’, Yockey understood that the subversion was not Manichaean, but historical, stemming from America’s development as a failed colonial offshoot of the High Culture — an offshoot which created an essentially Jewish social-economic system (i.e., totally materialistic) before the Jews had even begun arriving in the late 19th century.
Defending the Jews will get you nowhere
Michael, who do you think owned the rum distilleries in Rhode Island that formed one-third of the Triangle Trade beginning in A.D. 1505? Let’s see, that’s the very early 16th Century when Jews had not only arrived, but had managed to take a huge corner on alcoholic spirits and the slave trade.
Friend of the Jews? That’s rich.
I try to look at my world as it is, not as some 19th-century ideology would have me see it. If that means recognizing the profoundly Jewish character of our bustling Anglo-Protestant enterprise, enemy of Europe, and thus recognizing that the enemy is mainly within us and comes from our betrayal of Europe, then so be it.
If every Jew were suddenly removed from our misbegotten land, the situation, I suspect, would hardly change. America remains an essentially Judaic proposition — with or without the Jews.
Yockey, no friend of the Chosen, was an anti-American because America’s Hebraic mission in the world was a betrayal not just to Europe, but of the true America born of Europe.
But that’s something our anti-Semitic reductionists have trouble assimilating into their neat-and-tidy Manichaeanism.
Their Goal Is The Genocide of the White Race. What’s Yours?
Responding to Donald:
In one of his best soliloquies, Metzger, no friend of the Jew, described the fallen state of the white race in America, mentioning how the cities had all but fallen, and the Southwest had become The Reconquista. The parasites, said Metzger, had done their job well. Metzger then asked the rhetorical question, “Who do I blame for this?”
His answer shocked many of his listeners, who were expecting the usual Piercian style rant about The Chosen. Not this time. Tom finally figured it out.
Metzger replied, “Who do I blame? I blame us for letting this happen to us, that’s who I blame.” In essence, Metzger said if we were a healthy Racial organism, they would not have been able to get a toehold, much less a foothold. Terrible Tommy then described why he felt that way. “The parasite exists in the presence of decay. The parasite is only doing its job. If there wasn’t any decay, there wouldn’t be any opportunities for the parasite. He would go somewhere else.”
I don’t for a minute think the JQ is anything other than an important issue for us, particularly for what we can learn from their experience, and our experience with them.
I also think we have wasted valuable time with the rationalization that the Jews are behind everything, and the Jews control everything. They aren’t, and they don’t. We can learn from them in terms of organizational and political effectiveness. That we refuse to repeatedly, and endow them with much more power than that which we give them, seems consistent with Greg Johnson’s masterful formulation – many of us are nihilists, and are reactionary failures, having already been defeated by the Enemy, through their control of the media, the major institutions, but most of all by our own ineffective choices, made all the more ineffective by our simplistic, Childish blaming behavior. There’s no need for us to focus on a common metapolitical purpose, and working together in the fulfillment of that purpose. No, that would be too much like what the Jews do, and we can’t have THAT, can we, Charlie Brown?
We LET this happen to us, and the only way to reverse that is to stop being an active participant in the genocide of the white Race, and the death of Western Civilization.
Metzger also made an excellent point in a later broadcast: if all of the Jews were removed from American, we would still be a basically Jewish nation, because we have adopted the values, terms, words, and phrases of the Jews. In the next step, from “Something is Wrong!” to “What To DO About It?,” we must define our
adoption of The Enemy’s valuespassivity in the light of Peter Shank’s perfect question: “If all of the Others – the illegals, the Jews, all of our enemies – left this country tomorrow, just plain disappeared into the air, what would you do? What stops you from doing that NOW? What stops you from doing that?”Simple.
We have become Jews, in the sense of our obsession with materialism, to the exclusion of the spiritual. We have become very poor Jews, as we won’t do for our Race what they do for theirs. Quite the contrary.
An example? Glad you asked. We have one close to hand.
See the funding thermometer, in the upper right section of your screen? It’s been stuck at $11,353 for too long. I can assure you, at any synagogue in America, the $25,000 goal would have been met in a week, two at the most.
What does that say about us?
It says the epitaph on the tombstone of the white Race, and of Western Civilization, will read “We Let This Happen To Us.”
The alternative, the way forward, will be a long, hard, brutal struggle that takes place over generations, perhaps centuries. This does not discourage me; it inspires me to do what I can, today, to lay the foundation for the future.
What’s In YOUR Future? Focus Northwest!
Vulgar anti-Semites are probably incapable of properly appreciating or even comprehending Francis Parker Yockey’s or Michael O’Meara’s views on the Jews. It seems that if you attempt to put the Jewish problem into historical perspective, to explain why Jews wield the power and influence that they do, or question certain articles of faith held by vulgar anti-Semites (such as that Joseph Stalin’s real surname, Dzhugashvili, means “son of a Jew”) you will be accused of being an apologist for the Jews. It must be said that some anti-Semites really are small-minded bigots. And some of them are every bit as stupid, as ignorant, as primitive, and as noisy as Blacks.
What we need is cultural anti-Semitism — an anti-Semitism as total as Semitism — rather than vulgar anti-Semitism or effete anti-Semitism. This is more a matter of being who we are than of hating the Jews. It is as Indo-Europeans, and not simply as anti-Semites, that we must shake off our Jewish parasites.
Thanks to Kerry Bolton for reminding us, yet again, of the caliber of deep independent thought of Yockey serves to place light on our path, even now, more than a half-century after his death.
We need more of this cold, clear-eyed, analysis.
Kerry Bolton in blockquote:
Fascinating observation, that the military faction and the Communist faction were working at cross-purposes in 1952. Well, that issue has been pretty much resolved.
A point about the non-use of nuclear weapons in Korea, a “police action” created to serve Communist purposes, by using the breathtaking ignorance of a hberdasker from Kansas City.
Two quick comments:
One, as “police action” under the control of the United Nations, America was trapped in a series of military stalemates. Macarthur, a first rate military mind, was sent to Korea, with the hidden agenda of having him fail spectacularly, and thus removing him as a possible candidate for President.
Macarthur recognizes the Chinese-Korean forces seem remarkably skilled militarily, blocking him into stalemates and defeats almost routinely. Macarthur thought there must be leak, somewhere. There was. As Korea was a “police action” under UN “auspices,” all military plans were sent to the UN, where the Permanent Undersecretary for Military Affairs was…
Russian.
Macarthur formulated the plan fulfilled at Inchon, without crossing all of the “i’s” in the chain of command, and giving American forces a rare victory. Can’t have that, can we?
I suspect the discussion between Macarthur and Truman’s handlers was short and sweet. Threatened with nebulously defined charges of insubordination, Macarthur would go public and use words like “treason” and “traitors” in his well-documented defense. Not surprisingly, he was allowed to address the Congress and the nation, and go gently into that good night.
Two, as to the use of nuclear weapons in Korea, I suspect that Eisenhower came to an accommodation with the Chinese-Korean leaders. We allowed them them to control half of Korea, and we would not fulfill Eisenhower’s threat to use atomic weapons on them. No peace treaty was ever signed.
And, all of the CONservative complaints and criticisms of “Communism?”
Kabuki, anyone?
What’s In YOUR Future? Focus Northwest!
White Republican: Thank you. You said that very well.
For the numbskulls: Please consult any one of many articles archived at this site (and others) on the Jews, and then come back and tell me that I’m their defender. And remember, the Hochkultur, by definition, excludes the vulgar.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.