Edited by Kerry Bolton
Late in 1951 Francis Parker Yockey was approached by a member of Senator Joseph McCarthy’s staff and was asked to write the Senator a speech. This association drew the attention of the FBI. The Bureau regarded the speech as the work of Senator McCarthy, but remained uncertain about the association between McCarthy and Yockey.
However, it is apparent that Yockey was the author. This is evident by such phrases as Western Civilization as a “superpersonal force,” reference to the “inner enemy,” and the use of lower case when writing the names of “acheson” and “marshall” rather than capitalization of the first letter—a Yockeyism used in The Proclamation of London when referring to de gaulle and churchill, for example.
While the speech probably was not used and perhaps not even seen by McCarthy, it is notable that Yockey’s theme was taken up by the conservative movement when describing the Vietnam War as a United Nations “no-win war.” Another intriguing factor is that McCarthy did develop these themes that year in his book on General Marshall. There should be no doubt that the work is that of Yockey, not McCarthy.
The FBI knew that Yockey had been employed to ghost-write for McCarthy, by Perry Patterson, legal counsel to the conservative-orientated Washington Times-Herald, and Kevin Coogan cites correspondence that Yockey had himself sent to the FBI on his employment. Why the FBI was so ill-informed about the authorship of the speech “America’s Two Ways of Waging War,” just a year later, is therefore perplexing.
However, Coogan also cites evidence that Yockey had been in contact with Senator McCarthy as early as 1948–49, soon after Yockey went to England, and when McCarthy was involved in the plight of German Prisoners-of-War, who were being tortured to extract confessions in relation to the “Malmedy Massacre.”
What is especially of note about the speech is Yockey’s placement of America within the context of Western Civilization, having McCarthy state—at least hypothetically—his commitment to the “future of the Western Civilization, of which America is an integral part,” and to sharing that Civilization’s “great world mission.”
It seems that the speech was intended to be used by McCarthy at a meeting in Yorkville, New York, which was also to be addressed by German-American conservative luminaries such as Dr Austin App, and to appeal primarily to German-Americans. Hence the focus by Yockey in the speech on contrasting the attitude of the American regime towards fighting Germans and fighting Asiatic communists. After intense pressure from the media, however, McCarthy withdrew in favor of another engagement.
Yockey was not primarily an “American patriot.” His first loyalty was to the Destiny of Western Civilization and to the Mother-soil of the Europe, to the point of later advocating collaboration with the USSR against the American Occupation of Europe. It seems reasonable to conclude within the broader context of Yockey’s thought that he would seek out possibilities within the mass movement behind Senator McCarthy and General MacArthur that might set up a reaction against the inner and outer enemies of America which could be eventually identified as something other than merely Communism.
My fellow Americans:
Our meeting here tonight is symbolic—symbolic for a deep and wide unrest now going through the American people. This growing unrest arises from an awareness throughout all of our people that somehow, somewhere something is wrong. It does not fall to everyone to devote his life to the service of his people, but it is the duty of him who has made this decision to represent—truly to represent, in the most spiritual sense that of that word—his nation. It is for him to actualize the innermost feelings of the national soul; it is for him to make clear and articulate that which everyone dimly feels. It is his duty, because he is himself only the voice of his nation and his people.
Therefore, I am not going to burden you with purely personal ideas—I am going to answer the question in your minds and hearts: what is wrong in our land? Nor will I use the alien terminology of the Marxists whether from Moscow or Washington. Our enemies like to use involved and complicated explanations why their policy abroad is necessary, why America must continually retreat before advancing Communism, why American blood must be spilt in a war in which American victory on the battlefield is forbidden by the American government. But I will use only your language, which is my language; when I mean war, I shall say war, when I mean peace, I shall call it that, and when I mean treason, I shall say treason.
Have you ever noticed that the Truman-Acheson regime says war when it means peace, and says peace when it means war? In Korea, tonight, American blood is being spilt in defeat and Americans are dying in cold, in isolation, in despair. What does the Washington regime say to this? It says: “By our clever diplomacy we are preventing the Third World War.” Fellow Americans, they lie! Korea is the Third World War, and our rulers are leading America to a defeat in that war!
It is a shocking thing to say, and to contemplate, is it not? To think that men, entrusted before God and the world with the conduct of America’s destiny would coldly and deliberately prefer the interests of America’s enemy to the interests of this American nation. Because of the enormity of this crime, most of us hesitate even to think of such an explanation of events, and we only realize it with the greatest reluctance, when every other explanation is excluded.
As an American who has watched the steady descent of his country from this high point of 1945,when human affairs of 9/10ths of this earth were under the control of America, as an American who had felt himself humiliated as he has watched his country’s humiliation at the hands of the Communist Barbarians of Moscow, as an American veteran of America’s armed forces who is forced every day to read in the press a new list of hopeless American casualties, I have no joy in recounting to you the vicious story of treason in our country. It gives me no pleasure to tell you things which never ought to have happened within our land. But, regardless of everything else, my first duty is to tell you the truth—and in particular that very truth which the Washington regime is so intent upon concealing.
I would like to think, as would you also, that the explanation of America’s continuous and endless succession of defeats and humiliations, America’s progressive loss of power in the world, is simple incompetence on the part of the Executive branch of the government. Perhaps these people simply, do not know how to seek and acquire allies, perhaps they do not understand how to strike salutary fear into the hearts of the Kremlin barbarians as they proceed on their self-appointed task of the conquest of the world. Perhaps the Truman-Acheson regime would like to win in the present war with China, but they do not known how to manage a war.
This explanation could possibly be accepted if we did not still have before us, present in the memory of every person in this meeting, the entire Second World War. In that War, the entire Communist faction in the Washington regime was wholeheartedly in favor of victory.
In this war, as we all know, the Communist faction desires an American defeat. Let us compare the two wars, and we shall see develop before us America’s Two Ways of Waging War.
First of all, what was the objective of the Second World War? It was given to the world as unconditional surrender! They wanted total victory, and they said so. But what is the objective of the Chinese War now going on? In Acheson’s words, it is “a just truce.” Not even peace! Much less victory. No question of unconditional surrender. Marshall as Secretary of Defense visited the battlefront and there announced to the press that the American mission in Korea is “to prevent the enemy from coming below the 38th parallel.” Did he make a similar announcement when America was fighting Germany and Italy? No, when he wanted victory, he said so, and he subscribed to the “Unconditional Surrender” formula.
Next, during the present Chinese war, the whole regime in Washington says we must prevent the conflict from spreading, we must localize the conflict. What did they want in the Second World War? They wanted a continual extension of the front, continual involvement of other powers. They exerted every conceivable pressure to bring other powers in on their side. When they had two fronts, they wanted a third, and when they had that, they wanted a fourth. They wanted to win that war.
Next, did they refuse any offers of troops in the Second World War? On the contrary they used every pressure on neutrals to extract troops from them to sue against Germany and Italy. But in the present war against Red China, they have refused Chiang-Kai-Chek’s standing offer of 500,000 combat-ready troops. Not only do they refuse this offer, but they have ordered the American Navy to blockade Chiang-Kai-Chek so that he cannot strike the Chinese Communists. Yes, tonight, as we meet here, the American Navy is protecting Red China.
On the same point, South Korea under Synghman Rhee, our ally in the war against Red China, does not even have conscription of its manpower to defend the soil of Korea, nor has the Truman-Acheson regime put any pressure on South Korea to raise more troops by conscription. Not like the Second World War, is it? Then, they sought to get troops even from neutrals. Now, they refuse troops, even from allies. The difference is, that they wanted to win that war. You see, Russia and the Communist faction also wanted victory in that war.
In every war mistakes occur, and they occurred in the Second World War. More than once, American land forces and American air forces fired upon one another. More than once, American field headquarters were bombed by American planes. But these incidents were not magnified out of all proportion and spread across the land in great headlines. But, remember the scandal that was created out of the incident in Korea in the winter of 1950 when certain American units did not received their proper winter clothing? It is the operation of the Communist faction in the press and government which resolves this riddle. In the Second World War they wanted no military scandals to undermine public confidence in the command, to damage public morale. In the current war, the exact opposite is true. The want scandal which will break down public confidence and morale, which will lay the groundwork for defeat.
Next, remember how the press, in the Second World War, continually told, us of the imminent defeat of German, Italy and Japan? We were told every day—it won’t be long now, our victory is assured, we only need keep up the fight a little longer. Now what is the line, now that we are fighting Communism and Red armies? Now we learn that the war would be endless if it were extended, that we can never gain victory over the enemy, that Russia is getting stronger day by day, that Russian plane production exceeds ours, and that their planes and tanks are better, their man-power is greater, that the best we can hope for is to pay them tribute to let us live in peace.
Do you see how the pattern emerges, in unmistakable clarity, in utter simplicity? No wonder the inner enemy wants us to be confused by a thousand viewpoints, distracted by scandals, and twisted into knots by his perverted explanations of his treasonable diplomacy. All you need to do it sort out the facts, and the big issue is there: in its stark greatness, it dominates the entire American political landscape. Involved in this issue is the entire future of our land, our nation, our people. Either we meet this challenge, or our nation and everything that we have ever been known in world history by the name America will go down into permanent darkness.
Fellow Americans, look once more at the Second World War, the war against Germany. In selecting the leadership for that war, political and military, did our rulers select men with pro-German backgrounds, with a long record of affiliation with Germany, men who dealt publicity and privately with Germany’s leadership? On the contrary, any such persons were purged at once from positions of leadership, and only pronounced anti-Germans were entrusted with the conduct of the war against Germany. Regard now the present war against Red China, especially the moment of its beginning: in their theory, who are the participants in the war? The United Nations on the one side, the Republic of North Korea on the other. But who is entrusted with the conduct of the war, in theory? The Security Council of the United Nations—and in June 1950, at the beginning of the Korean War, this organ was presided over by a Russian delegate, the personal representative of Stalin. Here then we had American armies fighting under the command of an alien organization called the United Nations, and under the theoretical command of its Security Council presided over the enemy. When we fought Germany, were we ever a member of an alliance which embraced Germany, and presided over by a German representative?
Look again at the United Nations: the Secretary-General of this—should I say—organization, is a man named, most appropriately, Lie, spelled L-I-E. This man was nominated for this position by Russia, and he has continued during his tenure of office to merit the confidence of the Russians. His mission there is to see that Russian interests are not damaged, and he visits the Kremlin from time to time to report and consult.
Yet this is the organization for whose artificial flag American blood is being daily spilt, spilt heroically as far as the individuals are concerned, spilt in defeat as far as American national interests are concerned. When the American Navy bombards the enemy coast of Korea, the United Nations flag is run up, and American land forces fly this alien flag over their headquarters. Compare it with the Second World War. Were American soldiers told they were fighting for some abstraction, some League of Nations or other? No, because every leader knows that his nation will only give its best and sacrifice the most in the name of its own nation, a living, breathing reality, and in the sign of the symbol of that nation, clothed with its history, drenched by its blood, bound up with its honor. In the Second World War they wanted victory so they used the American flag, which has always been attended with victory. In the present war against Communism, they want a defeat of American arms, so they use an abstract flag representing nothing more than an office building in New York, the 2nd League of Nations, doomed, as we all know, to go the way of the first League of Nations.
During the Second World War, against Germany, no part of the press, and no one in the government, spoke of a truce, or of a peace. It was treated as quite self-evident that whoever sought peace was approaching treason. Now, however, when we are fighting against world-communism, our rulers talk of a “just truce,” whatever that is.
When the Red enemy finally consented to enter into truce talks—for his own purposes—he stipulated that the American delegate approach the conference through a gauntlet of Red bayonets, and carrying the white flag. This vile and dishonorable sight was then photographed and spread over all Asia as the sign of America’s surrender to Asiatic Reds. The illiterates of Mongolia, Burma, and India, to whom a newspaper means nothing, nevertheless understand the language of pictures, and know the meaning of the white flag. Why was this abject and vile performance kept from the American people? Compare it with the Second World War: did anyone ever suggest going to the Germans with the white flag? If he had, the Democratic administration would have prosecuted him for treason.
Another point: do you remember those first months of the war in Korea, when the only enemy in the field was the North Korean Red Army? During that period, the entire American press, and members of the administration prompted them, continually spoke of the possible intervention of China in the war. It was started as natural and normal that China would intervene against us, and no measures were contemplated, suggested, or discussed to prevent that intervention. Was there anything like this is the Second World War? Was it not treated as self-evident that if anyone entered the war it would be on our side? After all, Red China was created by the Truman-Acheson administration, and Marshall was the mid-wife who delivered this monster into life. No, the threatened intervention of China—not threatened by China, but by the Washington regime and by the Communist faction in the American press—was used as a further reason for inculcating defeatism, and for mollifying America’s conduct of the war.
Where in all this clear pattern of events do we find any ambiguity? How could mere stupidity, however gross, account for this systematic and continuing anti-American conduct? Look at the picture: American troops are in the field, they are fighting for their lives against huge odds, dependent for their bare survival upon their technical superiority in weapons and transport, dependent for their victory upon that same superiority. These American troops are armed—thank God for the technical superiority of Western Civilization!—with atomic weapons against which the Red Chinese enemy cannot retaliate. This superior weapon, which brought about the surrender of the Japanese empire within a week of its employment, is held back by our rulers. Did they hold back any weapon in the Second World War?
What reason do they give for this refusal to exploit every possible means to give victory to American arms, power to America, and life to American soldiers who tomorrow may be dead in this treasonable war in which victory is forbidden? They say: “We don’t want to anger the enemy, or the neutral, like the pro-Communist Nehru. We don’t, above all, want to spread the war, because Russia might intervene, and then, naturally, we would lose.” Did they refrain from the mass bombing of German and Japanese cities because it might make anybody angry? They would have pushed anyone aside who didn’t like it. They were determined on victory and unconditional surrender, and they were prepared to use any amount and any form of armed force against anybody whatsoever to achieve their purpose. From the beginning Nehru has been the spokesman for Red Chinese interests, so in that quarter we have no sympathy and no neutrality to lose. As to the argument about Russia: it is a crass and vile lie that Russia could defeat the United States in a military contest, and those in high places who say it know that it is a lie. If they believe it, they would be cowards, but they are worse than cowards, they are liars, using their lies to support their treason.
I am not yet finished with this matter of the atomic bomb. Fellow Americans, God made this world as it is, and in its ever-recurring forms we dimly perceive his divine plan. World-history, in which America is now caught up, involved for its very life in the tempest of events, is the history of nations. The units of history are nations. Those individuals who lead those nations owe their primary duty to that nation whose destiny God has placed temporarily in their hand. It is not allowed to a ruler to sacrifice his people on the battlefield to abstract aims like United Nations of some kind or other, like humanitarian principles of one kind or another; it is the duty of every government of every form to serve the national interests, and no government has the right to expend one single soldier for any other purpose.
It is thus the duty of the American military high command—and Truman, with Acheson hovering over him, is the supreme commander-in-chief—to bring victory to American arms in order to save American lives. In that duty every reasonable means of achieving victory must be pursued, including the use of atomic weapons to the utmost.
Six years ago, to justify the atomic bombardment of Japan, did not Truman officially state that it was done to terminate the war quickly and thus to save American lives? His reason was sound then—why is it not sound today?
It is not sound today, to the minds of the Truman-Acheson regime, because the aim of the present war against Red China is not victory, it is not unconditional surrender, it is not to save American lives. Six years ago this regime knew how to fight—can we believe that today it is longer knows how to fight? Would Truman, Acheson, and the entire Communist faction dare to appear on this platform and answer the questions of this audience here tonight?
Fellow Americans, I say to you now, and beyond this audience I say it to the entire American people and nation, and I say it with every ounce of seriousness and purpose I possess: The war in which America is now engaged is being waged not for American victory, but for Communist victory, and these in America who are ultimately responsible for the conduct of this war are guilty of black, damnable treason. Think of the Second World War on the question of prisoners-of-war: if any American legal officer had announced that Germany had killed 5,000 American prisoners-of-war, would he not have had a favorable and continuous press, would not the high command have given him every assistance in his task of investigation and proof?
We know they would. Yet how was it with Col. James Hadley, the judge advocate of the Army in Korea announced that he had proof of Communist slaughter of 5,000 American war-prisoners? He was immediately summoned to Tokyo for discipline. The command in Tokyo stated that he should have made announcement under their conditions, that he was injuring their plans by exposing Communist atrocities at that particular time. It was given a poor press, and Truman’s reaction to it was “If it is true, it is the worst thing that had happened in the century.” Note that “If it is true—.” It prepares the public to disbelieve it, to greet this American officer’s statement with suspicion, to wait and see. Editorials in the American press, slipped in by members of the Communist faction, counselled the public not to get excited, to wait and see—in other words: wait and forget. And up to now, what has been done about this massacre of American soldiers, surrendered and disarmed? Absolutely nothing. The Communist enemy has in no way been deterred from future massacres.
And yet, my friends, I know what Washington, Hamilton, or Andrew Jackson would have done.
During the Second World War, the Washington regime was not face with a great problem of an inner enemy. Nevertheless, it interned and uprooted all the Japanese on the West Coast and numerous German-born men and women all over the land. The vast majority of all internees were American citizens, but nobody worried much about their “civil liberties.”
During the present war with Red China, however, everything is different. The inner enemy is numerous, highly organized, thoroughly indoctrinated, with a literature of class war, proletarian dictatorship, and world conquest going back a century. At the very narrowest, the inner enemy includes the Communist Party and affiliated organizations; more realistically it includes also the Communist sympathizers and backers of Communist-front organizations, many of whom are high in positions in the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the Federal and State governments. Although we are in a state of actual war with Communism, with Red China backed by Red Russia, no measures have been taken against the dangerous and powerful inner enemy, who is actually in a position, as every day’s news tells us, to destroy the American war effort and kill American soldiers on the battlefield from behind.
One feeble measure attempted: an “anti-Communist bill” was passed by Congress, over the powerful opposition of the Executive branch of the government, requiring all Communists to register. Truman vetoed this anti-Communist bill, and it was passed over his veto. When it went into effect however, all Communists publicly and openly defied its provisions, and refused to register. Nothing was done to them, because the whole bill was drafted in such a way that it could not be enforced because of the vagueness of its provisions, and because there was no penal sanction to the measure. Was this an accident?
Why was it impossible to draft a real anti-Communist law?
Did they proceed this way during the Second World War against Germans and Japanese?
Think again of the Second World War: Were American troops, in the presence of the enemy, and without a truce being in effect, ever ordered to cease their fire? And yet this happened not three months since, in Korea. Company units, in the face of the enemy received an order, of which press correspondents there on the spot were informed, to refrain from firing on the enemy, except in self-defense. The order, once given, attributed to the “highest sources of command,” was suddenly revoked, and its very issuance was denied, as a result of the strong reaction of the American nation to this unbelievable scandal.
Is there anyone so blind that this glaring Red light does not illuminate the American political landscape for him?
Look at the list of Communist spies: Eisler, Hiss, Coplon, Guibychev, the Rosenbergs. Not one of them has received a punishment commensurate with his crime and sufficient to deter others from engaging in espionage. Eisler was allowed to escape. Hiss was tried on a charge minor in comparison to his real offense of espionage and given a short term from which he will soon be free. Coplon was released on a foolish technicality. Guibychjev was set free to go to Russia. The Rosenbergs were condemned to death on a charge of treason, but it was clear at the time and it is clear now that these spies are being protected: they will never receive the death penalty, and their case will be reversed on appeal. Note what I say, and then observe your newspapers.
Look for a moment at these men who are leading or who have led, the American war effort against Red China. There is Truman, whose pet name for Stalin is good old Joe, the man who played the piano for Stalin and Potsdam, even as he was giving him half the world. Look at Acheson, the leader of the pro-Russian clique during the entire Second World War, the member of a law firm which has represented Communist interests for 20 long years, the co-architect, with Marshall, of the Red Chinese State with which we are now at war, the bitter opponent of General MacArthur, whose first offense was that he refused to kow-tow to Russia in the Far East. Look at Marshall, the man, who as Chief of Staff of a great world power in a time of crisis, did not member where he was on the morning of the Pearl Harbor attack, the man who continually during the Second World War sacrificed the needs of MacArthur’s command in the Pacific to Russian needs in Europe, the man who undertook the mission to destroy the state of Chiang Kai-Chek, the firm ally of America, the man who gave decisive aid to the Red Chinese in the Civil War and thus at one stroke lost one-quarter of the world to Russia, the man who has had private conversations with Stalin, and has not thought it necessary to tell the American people what was discussed in those secret conversations. In the Second World War, they did not choose men of backgrounds friendly to Germany and to Germany’s leadership to carry on the war, but for the Third World War against Russian-directed Communism, the crusaders to lead it are men who have been distinguished by pro-Russian activity.
A hollow and stinking crusade! A crusade in a vacuum! A crusade which does not want to win!
Was there ever an instance, in the Second World War, in which an American general, who had held the highest military commands within the power of his nation confer on him, covered with the glories of his numerous victories, was removed from his command because he wanted to win the war? Of course there was not—the Washington regime wanted to win that war, so it encouraged and honored victorious generals. But in the Third World War, in which we are now engaged, which we are daily losing, and in which every day we are faced with a new scandal, a new lie, a new treason—everything is different. General MacArthur was disgracefully removed from command, and his offense was that he wanted to win the war.
In very truth, America has two ways of waging war. One for victory, and one for defeat.
Fellow Americans, we have stood in the pence of some awful truths tonight, we have contemplated some terrible things, we have witnessed the foulest of all crimes, the crime of treason. We have looked into the form of events, and the events have yielded up their mystery to us. Now that we know precisely what is wrong in our great land, what is our response?
It is one of the things for which we must be grateful that the Communist faction does not yet have sufficient power to prevent free elections, nor to stifle the public voice, nor prevent public organization in self-defense against the Communist advance within America. Twenty years ago, if anyone had foretold that in the time to come an American military commander would be dismissed for trying to bring victory to American arms, he would have been called a lunatic. Yet we have sense just that. If this pattern of events continues, twenty years from today the Communists will be embarking on their final mopping-up operations in their total destruction of everything the idea America has stood for in the history of nations. Perhaps they would have the assistance of barbarian troops from Russia. Perhaps that would not be necessary. If Americans are nothing but peace-seeking slaves who will pay tribute for peace, who will pay ransom to an enemy who kidnaps American airmen, the destruction of America from within will be easy.
But that is not to be, and one proof of it is this very gathering here tonight.
Tonight I have only been your voice saying what you feel and think. If these were only my personal thoughts, they would not be interesting, but these thoughts correspond to the feelings of the great mass of our people stretching from ocean to ocean, from the deserts of the Southwest to Maine’s rocky coast. If that which has been said here were only my personal ideas, you would not have come, nor would I be here. When I went into public life, I did not enter it for my own advantage and in public life I have always had the choice of saying the popular thing and getting praise from America’s powerful enemies, or of saying the truthful thing and being smeared and calumniated by those enemies, enemies of America, of you, and therefore, of me.
They have invented a word, McCarthyism. A clever trick, they thought. The idea was to make everybody think that I am something unique, some sort of wild individualist, somebody all alone. Their trick has not worked. I give it the lie right now. There is no such thing as McCarthyism—what they mean is Americanism.
When I give voice to an idea which is not in accord with the entire spirit of America and its history, an idea which is not in furtherance of America’s destiny, of America’s power, prestige, and honor in the world—then, but not until then, will there be such a thing as McCarthyism. Up until that time—no matter what America’s internal enemies chatter about, your enemies and mine—I shall speak only in the American spirit.
Part of the campaign of treason is defeatism: Russia is too strong for us; let us be careful; don’t use our superior weapons; someone might not like it if we win; let’s ransom our soldiers and be quiet about it; a new Communistic day has dawned in Asia; Communism means hope for the Asiatic masses. You have heard it all, and it has nauseated you.
I am not such a fool, nor such a contemptible coward to bring you any brand of defeatism. If I thought America was doomed to defeat and Communist extinction, I would still continue to fight to my last breath. But I don’t’ believe in any such thing: I believe in the spiritual resources of this nation. I believe that far from being exhausted, they have scarcely being tapped. America has only written its first pages in history, and not its last. I believe in the future of the Western Civilization, of which America is an integral part. I know, deep down inside me, that the future belongs to us who are part of this Civilization and whom share its great world mission.
I summon you, not to a Korea-type war in which to seek, and find defeat, but to a war for victory. This, our immediate war is not far beyond our shores, it is here, in our own land, against the inner enemy. How can we conscientiously ask an American soldier to fight a foreign enemy under the command of the Truman-Acheson regime which has been guilty of such monstrous conduct, whose members have been pro-Russian all of their lives, a regime which cannot possibly be trusted to lead a war against Communism, honeycombed with Communist sympathizers and agents as it is?
It is not a part of the divine plan that a great superpersonal force working for order and creativeness in the world, like the Western Civilization, is to be overcome by an onslaught of barbarians against an America weakened by corruption and betrayed by a horde of achesons.
The inner enemy, like the Red Chinese Armies in Korea, has not earned any of his victories. They have been presented to him by the marshalls and achesons. But America is coming back. We shall pull ourselves and our nation out of this swamp of treason, corruption, and disgust.
We shall liberate our land from the domination of traitors, and then, by the help of the Almighty God, we shall restore the word America to its old meaning in the world before all nations.
By the deluge of our votes, by the irresistible storm of our organized protest, we shall sweep America clear of its inner enemies and onward to its God-given Destiny.
1. Kevin Coogan, Dreamer of the Day: Francis Parker Yockey and the Postwar Fascist International (Brooklyn: Autonomedia, 1999), pp. 238–39.
2. Coogan, p. 240. Coogan cites as his source one of Yockey’s primary English supporters, J. A. Gannon.
3. Coogan, p. 243.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
Are We (Finally) Living in the World of Atlas Shrugged? Part 2
Aleister Crowley jako politický teoretik, část 2
White Solidarity in Action: Ukrainian Refugees in Poland, Part 2
White Solidarity in Action: Ukrainian Refugees in Poland, Part 1
The Protocols of Zion Today, Part 1
Aleister Crowley jako politický teoretik, část 1
Un Etat Blanc unique ou plusieurs?
Nuts, Fruits, and Flakes: Objective Analysis of a Granola Congress