Edited by Kerry Bolton
The first of these reflections was written in June of 1950. It shows that Yockey had already adopted a “neutralist” position for Europe vis-à-vis America and Russia during the “Cold War.” He certainly did not think, as was common – and still is – among “anti-Semites,” that there was a covert collusion between Jewish capitalists in New York and Jewish commissars in Moscow to rule the world.
While he continued to regard Russians as barbarian invaders from the Asian steppes, he saw the American occupation of Europe as the greater danger, because of its spiritually and culturally corrosive impact. He states here a later major theme: “To urge a crusade against Moscow Bolshevism simply plays into the hands of the Washington regime.”
This 1950 memorandum gives credence to an FBI report that cites Yockey, at the 1949 inaugural meeting of the European Liberation Front, urging the formation of a partisan organisation in West Germany that would act against the “Western Occupation Powers,” in collaboration with the Soviet military authorities. The cultural contamination from American Occupation was a greater danger to Europe than Soviet military occupation, and Yockey was to later consider the possibilities of a European-Russian symbiosis.
While Yockey suggest that historical laws indicate that within five years Europe would resist, or “throw away” the opportunity, the latter occurred, and “Marshall Aid” for the rebuilding of Germany had replaced the “Morgenthau Plan for the annihilation of Germany, as the USA presented itself as Europe’s protector against the Soviet menace. The analogous situation today is America’s role as “protector of the West” against the new “enemy,” “Islamic terrorism.” We might therefore understand today why Europe acquiesced in the aftermath of World War II to the domination of New York, Hollywood, and Washington, just as the present generation acquiesces to American hegemony.
It is of note that Yockey was writing (1950) when the “Morgenthau Plan” for the extermination of Germans was still in effect. There was reason to believe that unless Germany resisted a large proportion of the German folk would literally starve to death in a calculated genocide hatched in Washington, had this policy not been reversed with the “Marshall Plan” to reconstruct Europe, including Germany.
An additional factor in blocking Yockey’s vision of a regenerated and united Europe, was that Europe did unite, but under the terms and ideology of the “outer enemy,” along Masonic and plutocratic lines; what might be called “Anti-Europe,” as it persists today. The Destiny that Yockey saw for Europe five years hence was thus aborted, in favor of a counterfeit “Europe.”
The 1953 note on intellectualism demarcates the outlooks between Western Destiny Thinkers and modern academia. The latter has limited horizons caught in the Zeitgeist of 19th century materialism. “Scholarship” is weighed as a set of figures and calculations, as a merchant would count his money. There is no “feeling” for history, which would be regarded as lacking empiricism, and therefore little understanding of the extra-material forces from which history unfolds.
Thoughts, Distilled from a Memorandum Written in June, 1950
The world-situation of the moment takes the form of war-preparations between the two remaining powers. Such a war would be a great war, and would be begun with corresponding caution. No “incident” in Berlin, Trieste, or elsewhere could precipitate such a war.
It is obvious that neither power is prepared. Preparation means something quite different to both powers. To Russia it means a much higher state of TECHNICAL organization, for America’s sole advantage vis-à-vis Russia is the technical one. To America it means possessing of vast masses of infantry. Both powers will need years of preparation. I do not mean absolute preparation, for that never exists, but only the feeling of preparedness.
The stake of the war will be possession of the soil of Europe, the center of the world.
Russia can win only with higher technical development; America only with infantry-masses far greater than it alone can raise.
To urge a crusade against Moscow Bolshevism simply plays into the hands of the Washington regime.
Imperialism now supplants the older word fascism. Fascism was still infused with petty-stateism to a greater or lesser degree.
The enemy is organized INTERNATIONALLY on all levels. For us to fail so to organize is to insure that our several struggle, however gallant and heroic, will be severally doomed. It is simply the reign of terror in Europe that keeps Europeans out of active politics and in their homes.
By the ordinary cycles governing such things, it can be known that in about five years, approximately 1955, the initiative will pass to us, for us to exploit, or to throw away.
All of the intellectuals and critics who have read Spengler almost without exception have misunderstood him. They missed the highly important sentence: “What I have written here is true, that is, true for me and for the leading minds of the time to come.” These scholarly idiots all put the question to themselves: Is this philosophy TRUE? Naturally in an age of criticism, nothing is considered subjectively true, as all the scholars, again almost without exception rejected Spengler, although all borrowed his method and his terminology and conclusions in great part to reach philosophical conclusions in perfect harmony with the Pollyanna spirit of 1900.
Any one of the XXth century who thinks that the philosophy is objectively true or objectively false is an anachronism, and an idiot. A belief is true if it makes us more efficient, more dangerous, more coordinated. In this sense Spengler is true – his philosophy corresponds to our deepest metaphysical instinct, make us thus harmonious in feeling and in deed and in word.
The scholar-idiots demonstrated also in their senseless fault-finding with Spengler their total incompetence in the esthetic realm: a philosophy is a picture – here again, Spengler said it for them, but this they did not read, and if a picture is a whole, if it lives, if it works creatively on the observer, it is esthetically true. It does not matter whether in the foreground the shadows fall right and left in the background.
We live in an age when mental refinement, like everything else rare and beautiful, has apparently died out. The statesmen are miserable self-seekers, almost without exception, the so-called thinkers are merely erudite mouthpieces of the party-politician, the scientists are fakirs who change their theories every few years, there are no religionists, no artists, no universal minds here.
1. FBI Memorandum, 100-25647, Passport and Visa Matters, November 24, 1953, p. 1.
2. J. Bacque, Crimes & Mercies: The Fate of German Civilians Under Allied Occupation 1944–1950 (London: Little Brown & Co., 1997).
3. Dr. Marian Mihaila, “European Union and Freemasonry,” Masonic Forum, http://www.masonicforum.ro/en/nr27/european.html#b_22
Dr. Corneliu Zeana, “The European Union – a Masonic Accomplishment,” Masonic Forum, http://www.masonicforum.ro/en/nr20/zeana.html
Count Richard Coundenhove-Kalergi, acknowledged by the European Union as its ideological father, was backed by the Rothschilds and Warburgs. Kalergi stated of this, in his book Pan Europe:
Early in 1924 Baron Louis Rothschild telephoned to say that a friend of his, Max Warburg, had read my book and wanted to meet me. To my great astonishment Warburg immediately offered a donation of 60,000 gold marks to see the movement through its first three years. Max Warburg was a staunch supporter of Pan-Europe all his life and we remained close friends until his death in 1946. His readiness to support it (the movement) at the outset contributed decisively to its subsequent success.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
Aleister Crowley jako politický teoretik, část 2
Osama bin Laden’s Letter to America
Must Jews Be Able to Feel Safe in Germany?
The Third World War Begins
Sahra Wagenknecht and Alternative for Germany: The German Right’s Dilemma
Aleister Crowley jako politický teoretik, část 1
Un Etat Blanc unique ou plusieurs?