Of the many long-lost texts by Francis Parker Yockey that will be included in our upcoming anthology of Yockey’s shorter writings, The World in Flames, one is a four-part essay entitled “Brotherhood.” Kerry Bolton and I had to search far and wide to find a complete copy of the text, as we announced during our search earlier this year, but find it we finally did, and we offer it here as a prelude to our patient readers who have been awaiting the finalized volume. The Preface is by Dr. Bolton. — John Morgan
“Brotherhood” appeared in 1953 as a four-part series under the name of Frederick Chas. F. Weiss, over four issues of the National Renaissance Bulletin (June, July, October, and December). It is suggested that Yockey had considerable input into this essay, if not the majority of input. Yockey was back in the United States in late 1952, departing to work at the propaganda department of the Egyptian government in early 1953. It was in 1952 that Yockey had met Weiss, and was assisting Weiss’ colleague H. Keith Thompson with writing to the US State Department regarding the jailing of Major General Otto Remer and the banning of the Socialist Reich Party in Germany, under the name of the Committee for International Justice. It seems plausible that Yockey would assist Weiss with the writing of “Brotherhood” in late 1952; a time during which the FBI noted that they had received information that Yockey was writing Weiss’ material, although joint authorship seems more likely.
Again, the theme is Spenglerian, in particular the theme of a Bolshevik-led “class war” and a race war of the colored world (through both internal and external revolts) against the white nations, which is is a major theme of Spengler’s last book, The Hour of Decision. However, in “Brotherhood,” the focus is on the subversive character of modern Christianity, with its worldly ideology that has become a tool of the “Jewish Consensus” and its Left-liberal allies, an antithesis of the “Gothic Christianity” that Yockey described in Imperium and elsewhere as providing the foundations of Western High Culture and the defense mechanism against Jewish culture-pathology and usury. Now, the religion of the churches had become that of “Brotherhood,” and the vitality of the West was and is being sapped to oblivion.
It is towards the final pages of “Brotherhood,” when alluding to constitutions as expressing a race-soul, that Yockey’s thinking becomes most evident. Compare the passages on constitutions and state-formation here with that of Yockey’s essay written while at college, “The Philosophy of Constitutional Law,” where Yockey wrote, for example:
The kind of law is dependent directly and completely on the kind of lawgiver, and therewith on the society in which he has matured – whether primitive or cultured, whether feudal or cosmopolitan, aristocratically or democratically ordered, industrial or agricultural, whether Russian, Western, Chinese, Indian, Egyptian, or Classical. A nation is as much a legal unit as it is a political or economic unit. In the law of a people its world-outlook finds pure and clear expression (there are outstanding exceptions, but in these cases the alien-ness of the law dominated the legal picture, and eventually the law was either spiritually transformed (Roman law by the Arabian Culture), or became the object of a violent political abrogation (Roman law by Germany in 1935).
According to “Brotherhood,” in writing the US Constitution, the Founding Fathers “had to act consciously or unconsciously under the spell of the culture of their ancestors. For their soul would not let them do otherwise. They responded to the spell of the same culture which had produced the peoples of Europe, but not of a culture which had been produced by these peoples.” Further, it is held that the American nation was born not only through a common spiritual feeling, and certainly not through a political or even a zoological bond, but “through an idea of our spiritual Elite which had to act under the spell of a Western culture.”
Again, from Yockey’s college paper on constitutionalism:
It is in the national soul, preserved in tradition and expressed anew at every epoch, that we must look for the source of the living constitution – that constitution that exists (in any Western nation) for nine hundred years before the brief interlude of rationalistic written constitutions and will continue, after their inevitable demise, to the end of Western history.
Since the early 1950s, the “Brotherhood-Babblers” have become predominate in all the churches of the West. It is called the “social gospel,” and the banal cries for “social justice” show no semblance whatever to the traditional social doctrine of the Catholic Church that had been expressed through papal encyclicals until Quadragesimo Anno (1931), and had formed the Gothic edifice of the Western High Culture until the Reformation, which started to undermine the old sanctions against usury.
From the “Right” of the churches there is a “prosperity gospel” that is particularly avid in its support for the “Jewish Consensus”; from the “Left,” “Brotherhood” has become the predominant gospel, with the focus being on feminism, homosexuality, “racism,” and open borders, and one does not even have to profess faith in Jesus as the supernatural Son of God, nor in “God the Father” (patriarchy), not only to be a “Christian” but even to become a minister of the new social gospel. While Protestantism showed the first signs of rot in its very foundation, the Catholic Church finally succumbed to it with Vatican II during the 1960s. What remains is the spirit of Bolshevism. The following is a fairly typical example, taken from the Uniting Church, a major church body in Australia and New Zealand:
The Give Hope campaign for asylum seekers is an initiative of the Social Justice Forum and its partners. It was founded in response to growing community concern about how asylum seekers and refugees were being treated in Australia. The plight of refugees and asylum seekers was identified by Forum affiliates as a key concern for their members.
Frederick Chas. F. Weiss
A religion is that which the soul of the faithful is. A church is worth just as much as the priest-material of which it is composed is worth. All priests are human beings. The fate of churches therefore becomes dependent upon the human material of their continuously changing personnel. The vulgar instincts and vulgar thoughts of many of our clergy seems to become predominant now in these times of our social degeneration and revolutionary demolition. A priest-rabble drags the dignity of the church through the mud of petty politics, allies itself with an international, landless, boundless, and alien Consensus in our midst, and by sentimental talk about Brotherhood, eggs on our misguided mob and so destroys the social order – that order with which the church is irrevocably and fatally bound up.
And here we ask: Does the outcry for brotherhood and World-Reconciliation of many of our clergy not actually mean our abdication from history at the cost of dignity, honor, and liberty? Is not life war? Can we dismiss its meaning and yet retain it? When our priests shout from the pulpits: Love your neighbor and help the poor, down-trodden peoples of Asia and Africa . . . these yellow-brown-black men on the shores of the Yangtze and Senegal rivers see through us! They scent our unfitness and lack of will to defend ourselves! They do not cling to a life whose length is its sole value! Once they feared us, now they despise us! Once they were filled with terror at our power, now they look down upon us as a thing of yesterday! But, that is not all. In Asia and Africa, the extraordinary public profiles will increase still more enormously now that European and American medicine has been introduced to check disease, which was so strong a selective factor. In contrast to this, the apparent increase of the white population all over the world, little as it is in comparison with the volume of the colored increase, rests upon a temporary illusion: the number of children grows ever smaller, and only the number of adults increases, not because there are more of them, but because they live longer.
Yet, the mob element in the priesthood continues unabated its raid upon whatever there is left of our “Race” qualities. And the Consensus sees to it that our masses live so under the bombardment of their intellectual artillery that hardly anyone can acquire a clear view of the present monstrous drama. What the Press, Radio, and Television wills, is true. For our masses, Truth is that which they continually read, hear, and see by media of communication which the Consensus controls.
Yet nobody tells them that all Communist systems in the West are in fact derived from Christian theological thought. The Consensus’ terrible censorship of silence sees to that. It sees to it that nobody dares to tell our masses that Christian theology, as taught in our schools and distorted from the pulpit, is the grandmother of Western Bolshevism: that all abstract brooding over economic concepts that are remote from any economic experience (like the Four-Point raising of the standard of living of the Hottentots to that of our own) will lead in one way or another to reasoned conclusion against State and Property. Were we to understand this, we then could easily comprehend why the Bolshevism of our priesthood, fostered by the bolshevistic teachings of our cosmopolitan Intelligentsia, is ten times more dangerous than Asiatic Bolshevism: that it is more dangerous because it hides behind the mask of religion.
And so, nobody tells us, that to put into effect the Brotherhood ideal which our One-World apostles shower upon us from the pulpits, requires dictatorship, a reign of terror, armed force, the inequality of a system of slaves and masters, men in command and men in obedience – in short: Moscow. –
When Jesus was taken before Pilate, then two worlds were facing each other in immediate and implacable hostility: a world of facts and a world of truth. At this appallingly distinct scene, overwhelming in its symbolism, human tragedy took the highest conceivable form. In the famous question of Pilate: “What is truth?” – lies the entire meaning of history, the exclusive validity of truth, the prestige of State and war and blood.
“What is actuality?” – for Pilate actuality was all; for Jesus nothing. How – otherwise – could pure religiousness stand up against history or sit in judgment on active life?
“My Kingdom is not of this world.” This final word admits of no gloss. A statesman can be deeply religious, a pious man can die for his county – but they must, both, know on which side they are standing. When the statesman ridicules the inward thought-process of the ethical philosopher in a world of fact . . . or the pious man discards all ambition in the historical world as sinful and as lacking any lasting value . . . then for the onlooker it is meaningless to argue which one of the two is right or wrong.
But if our present administration wishes to “improve” the religious feeling of our masses in the direction of political, practical, purposes – then these ten, twelve, or fourteen point acrobats stand before History as absolute fools.
And equally, when our Brotherhood Preachers try to bridge the course of History and the existence of a divine world-order – they are fools also. They’d better leave this experiment to those champion prestidigitators whose nation-feeling over the last four millennia comprised neither more nor less than what was and is covered by the Ideas of the Church of their landless, boundless Consensus.
The idea underlying this alien “brother-nation” in our midst is the result of an immense mission. Whereas the history of the Jewish Consensus has been for its members the progressive actualization in and through mankind of a world plan laid down by God and accomplished between a creation and a cataclysm, history in our eyes is a single grand willing of conscious logic in the accomplishment of which nations are led step by step and represented by their Presidents, Leaders, Kings, and Kaisers. Whereas our nation concept, though necessarily bound up with a particular religiousness, is not so with a particular confession, the nation-feeling of the Consensus comprises neither more nor less than is covered by the idea of its church. Thus, the Jewish Community embraces the whole of the world – “cavern,” the here and the beyond, and within this community their ”state” only forms a smaller unit of the visible side, a unit, therefore, of which the operations were governed by the major whole. Consequently, in the Jewish world the separation of politics and religion is theoretically impossible and nonsensical, whereas in our Western Culture the battle of Church and State is inherent in the very conceptions: logical, necessary, unending!
Jesus’ final words: “My Kingdom is not of this world” and “Give unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s” are absolutely nonsensical to the elect, just as they appear nonsensical to the governing horde in the Kremlin . . . and to our own babbling Brotherhood apostles, for that matter. Whereas our nations are inwardly linked with a landscape, the Consensus knows neither fatherland nor a mother tongue. Our country as a region whose boundaries an individual cannot see, but which he will nevertheless defend and die for, is something that in its symbolic depth and force the elect in “exile” can never comprehend. To us, on the other hand, the inwardness and hidden force of the Consensus, its tacit, self-secure cohesion based upon a purely metaphysical impulse, but by no means on a deliberate, visible organization, is something entirely enigmatic. If our nation contains a great proportion of folk-elements of varied provenance to whom state-majesty, a life symbol of the first order, means absolutely nothing, it is not so with the members of the Consensus. They, too, are of varied provenance, yet the energy of the Consensus long ago has completely overridden the older tribal arrangement. They therefore no longer constitute an obstacle to the closest world-wide cohesion, for they are all co-believers, they all belong to one body which knows the “right” way to salvation. Whereas the plurality of the elect venerate their “State” as a matured form of high symbolism, the plurality of our people look upon our State as a vehicle to serve their private, selfish ends. But the deepest element of separation and bitterness is the difference in phase. Where we experience the short, crowded epoch in which our history and destiny now take decisive turns, for the Jew, all this lies thirty generations back. He lives these experiences, not really as something of his own, but as a partisan, a supporter, or as an interested spectator. A Jewish cavalry general fought in the Thirty Years’ War – but what did the ideas of Luther of Loyola mean to him? Certainly not more than our ideas mean today to our Jewish generals, admirals, and to our “consulting statesmen.”
But there is also a statistical aspect to the matter. For every human being alive today there are ten million ancestors who lived around 1000 AD. Consequently, each and every one of us of Celtic-Germanic stamp is without exception a blood relative of every Nordic European of the age of the Crusades. But in the cases of the Consensus with its thousand years of ghetto life, the relationship becomes a thousand times more intensely close, and this especially so in the case of its Western European members. And if we look carefully into this phenomenon of mysterious resemblance, we begin to comprehend why we can hardly exaggerate the formative power which created the immense race energy of this alien people, so that in utter unconsciousness it has been able to fulfill to this very day its will of the race.
Even when the force of “cohesion” between the elect and the institutions of his host people exercises an outward attraction upon him, to the point of induced patriotism, the “party” he supports is always that of which the aims are most nearly comparable with the essence of his boundless, landless nation. Hence, “by nature,” he is today a “Communist” of the Trotsky brand; a One-World-Apostle, that is. And it is certainly a fatal misunderstanding if we regard these “Democrats” or “Republicans” as kindred spirits – that is as “constitutionalists” in our Western sense. For, if there is inward alienness, a man destroys even where his desire is to be constructive. And, if he does no longer possess the material power to enable him to act in the cadre of his own Culture (as we see it today in Stalin’s “Russia”); if he no longer can ignore or manipulate the destiny of the Russian people (as he did in Trotsky’s time); he stands helpless in the midst of events and his cohesion falls apart. Hence, it is quite natural that today he subtly professes to be an “Anti-Communist” . . . by which he, naturally, means only to be opposed to “Stalinism” (which he regards today – and righteously so – as his most deadly enemy)!
The Machiavellian genius of these few alien go-betweens and cosmopolitan mediators, have now set the stage to bring about a climax in the fulfillment of their mission: the final achievement of their World-rule with the help of a pyrrhic victory à la Korea by either East or West; fought out in the land of those they dread the most: the German nation! That is, however, if not before, their Berias and Judins should have succeeded in the liquidation of the Molotovs and Stalins: For, that would be the day when our babbling Brotherhood Apostles would smoothly and silently (the Potsdam, Yalta, and Teheran way) sign away our historical rights; when we – without a shot – would abdicate, not in favor of everlasting peace, but in favor of a supernational UN, which then would automatically become the maximum conceivable field for the exploitation by the only remaining world power: The landless, boundless, cosmopolitan Consensus!
We now comprehend why it is impossible that the two metaphysics can ever come closer to one another. Yet, our Brotherhood-Babblers shout from their pulpits that only our religious confession would separate us from these aliens in our midst! Incapable of feeling the metaphysical hatred, which is the beat-difference of two currents of being and which settles deep in the blood – these deplorable babbling priests, those doctrinaires and Utopians, these lawmakers and shoemakers – for sheer want of “race” – no longer are able to register as such the unbearable dissonance between the two Cultures; they are no longer able to feel these fundamental differences because they themselves – in contrast to the majority of the members of the Jewish Consensus – have ceased to be metaphysical at all.
And so from their pulpit, they poison the mind of our “Fourth Estate,” the mass, which now rejects our Tradition, our Culture, and its matured forms – lock, stock, and barrel!
Shall we now pass from history into the historyless? Will it be the end, the radical nullity?
Slowly now, to our horror, there rises before our inner eye a Trinity: Father, Son, and Ghost. All unholy, to be sure, but unholiest of the three is the Ghost.
For, whereas the Jew fathers World-Bolshevism for the “holy” task of fulfilling his mission; whereas the ungrateful son in the Kremlin – again for the “holy” purpose of shaping his own destiny – threatens now to murder the Father, lest the Father murders the Son, the Ghost causes his obsessed victim to commit suicide.
Both Father and Son are masters in the art of the possible. Their eye for possibilities assures them of victory. They both are masters of fact. And so they sensed the possibility of making an end of our White World and promptly – with the help of the Ghost – began to let us tear down what centuries had built up, both here and in Europe. The result is that we have now become mere objects of a supranational “progressive” government.
The warning that this progress actually meant constitutional anarchy, and the negation of every kind of authority, was met with contemptuous laughter by our “liberals,” by our Brotherhood-Babblers and World-Reconcilers, all of whom were obsessed by the most frightful thing our White World has ever experienced – nihilism, that is.
Thus, the Father and Son joined forces with a Ghost in our midst that had obsessed our “enlightened” doctrinaires and Utopians since the middle of the eighteenth century, but which now – with the help of Father and Son – turned its attention successfully from the theological systems of Christianity and traditional world philosophy of our Western scholars – to the fact of actuality: the Western State with all its sacred institutions. And how easily we let Father and Son win over our Nihilists: our literary and political Bohemia, our wastrel “nobility,” our spiritually shipwrecked academicians, our adventurers and speculators, our criminals and loiterers, our halfwits and sunken priests . . . mixed with pathetic enthusiasts for the abstract ideal of universal Brotherhood.
With the media of a “subsidized” press, International News Service, and above all, with the Father’s own Radio and Television systems, the unholy Trinity now forms at will the consciousness of our “Fourth Estate,” the Mass, under a deafening drumfire of theses, catchwords, standpoints, scenes, and perverted feelings. Above all they tell our spiritually poor, downtrodden mass that a new era – “democracy of the Century” – had dawned. They flatter and organize the mass of our wage-earners in the cities and industrial centers and drive them by means of a cynical propaganda into the class war against the majority of our people. Whenever the agents of this unholy Trinity are able to assemble corporeally a mass; whenever the millions of our families are gathered around their television sets, they subject them to an influencing process, unknown even at the time of Caesar and Cicero. For their bodily near and sensuous means, and their rhetoric that works upon every ear and eye, have no parallel. Their shameless flattery, fantastic lies, brilliant phrases, and resounding cadenzas, their “games” and presents, their Jazz music, rhumbas, and Negro dances . . . and even when necessary – their rehearsed sob-effects, outmatch everything that the democracies of other centuries had to offer!
This process of “conversion,” this veryiddeln of the spirit of our masses, goes on and on; it does not stop before the Titans of our Beaux Arts, not even before Science (who did not hear of Einstein, whoever heard of Planck?).
Whether our Western States in their present form would be able to hold their own over the next decisive years . . . no one dares to question. All that matters, they tell us, is that we hang on fervently to the words (but not to the meaning) of our Constitution and so to secure for the Father his special “God Given” right to freedom from every kind of restriction of our soil-bound life and his absolute freedom to exercise at will his worldwide monopoly of mediation.
All that matters, they tell us, is that we should bleed ourselves white and permit the Father’s own supranational government to shower our blessings and resources in the form of “universal rights” over our drum-beating and rhumba-dancing brown-black-and-yellow brethren; over those who had not ever thought of claiming them.
Is there any wonder that we live so cowed under this bombardment of the intellectual artillery of our unholy Trinity that hardly anyone of us can attain to the inward detachment that is required for a clear view of the present monstrous drama? The will-to-power of this Trinity, operating under a pure “democratic” disguise, has finished off its masterpiece so well that our masses’ sense of freedom is actually flattered by the most thoroughgoing enslavement that has ever existed. So successfully is this deceit manipulated that our multitude now placidly goes its way in the belief that it has won for itself the famous four freedoms; that phrase which we express so proudly in “Liberal Constitutions” is now nothing but anarchy become a habit. For, no nation can govern itself . . . any more than an army can lead itself. What we call democracy, parliamentarianism, government “by the people” . . . is in fact nothing else than the mere non-existence of a conscious responsible authority, a government that is, a true State.
Nobody dares to lift a finger when – upon command of Father and Son – our Ghost-obsessed Brotherhood-Babblers, detached from the pulse of our blood and being, tell our masses that they can no longer find any “reasonable” connotation for the Nation idea; that the time is now ripe for Universal Brotherhood and . . . that gone forever are the days when a white man held a bit of soil to be worth dying for.
Unobserved by the majority of us, we now have ceded the choice of the hour to Father and Son; to Asia, whose frontier now lies along the Elbe River. For the first time since the siege of Vienna by the Turks, our white world again has been put on the defensive. Where yesterday we would have commanded, we now have to flatter if we are even to negotiate and nobody among us is even aware of this sad fact.
Deprived of our most powerful ally since 1776 – distance; deprived of every potential powerful European ally after our pyrrhic victory over Central Europe; Fate now knocks at our door and demands that we take over the leadership of our white world in the last struggle for all or nothing.
In this Hour of Decision, this gravest task of ours no longer can be pushed into the future as an unavowed commitment upon the shoulders of our heirs’ heirs. Too heavy now has become the centrifugal pressure emanating from an Asiatic focus of power; too obvious has become the will of the unholy Father in our midst to deny us the man who in the last moment could muster every possible resource of spiritual power that is still left in our white world; too great has become the power of this unholy Father in our midst, who at will unleashes the mass of his readers and listeners – that mass, which at any time, upon the command of its true master, will storm through the streets and hurl itself upon the “Fascists,” “Nazis,” “Bigots,” and “Hate-Mongers,” the moment the few who are left of our elite dare to offer resistance.
And so we see the eventual physical death of tens of millions and the certain political death of all of us to be near at hand . . . that is, if the store of excellent blood that still exists in a great part of the American people can no longer be roused and spiritualized to meet the stupendous challenge of Father, Son – and our Ghost-obsessed Brotherhood-Babblers and One-World Apostles.
At this decisive moment, the ghettoes of New York City now have become the point, where the whole life of our entire Western World is collecting while the rest dries up. What does it signify? It signifies that London, Berlin, and Paris, together with our own big cities, including our “Capital,” have become provinces! It signifies the approach of the end. From now on, the great intellectual decisions take place, not in the whole Western World where yesterday no hamlet was too small to be unimportant, but in the world-city of New York where the Father of World-Bolshevism has absorbed into itself the whole content of our Western History, while the old, wide landscape of the Culture – here as well as in Western Europe – has become merely provincial and is fighting a losing battle against the chosen Big Brains in the World Capital of New York.
If we fearlessly try to comprehend the great crisis of the present, we have to concede that from this moment on, all our great conflicts of world-outlook, of politics, of art, of science, of feeling, are now – not only here in America, but throughout our Western World – under the opposition of the Father; that the hallmark of our Western politics today is journalism and broadcasting rhetoric, both serving that abstract which represents the real power behind everything – money! And, worse still, here in America this money-spirit penetrated unnoticed the historical forms of the people’s existence – without destroying or even disturbing these forms, so that our great parties, though still in being, have ceased now to be more than the reputed centers of decision. The decisions in fact lie elsewhere. A small number of superior heads – those champions in battles fought with the coldest and most abstract means – in the Father’s consensus, whose names are hardly known, keep skillfully alive the illusion of popular self-determination.
May the following chapter help in comprehension.
We will attempt now to show why all this had to come; why it had to happen . . . , because we let it happen; how we tried to adhere to this or that, but not to the necessary . . . and why now we are confronted with the nothing: with our final abdication from the political platform! For, what the individual will not do, Fate (and what a Fate) will do for him! . . .
“Historical” man is the man of Culture, that is in full march towards self-fulfillment. Before this, after this, outside of this, man is historyless, and the destinies of the people to which he belongs matter as little as the Earth’s destiny matters when the plan of attention is the astronomical and not the geological.
Culture is the being of nations in State-form. A nation, a living and struggling unit flowing in the stream of history, possesses above all a State as an Idea. Even very lowly animal genera, not to speak of ants, bees, migrating birds, beavers, etc., have “constitutions” of some sort.
Peoples as States are the real forces of all human happenings; they are destiny. Every State that emerges in History exists as it is but once and for a moment; the next moment it has, imperceptibly, undergone a mutation, whatever the rigidity of its legal constitution. The systematically planned State of the theorist will ever contrast with the State of actuality. For no real constitution, when taken by itself and committed to paper as a system, is complete. The description of a State or its constitutional archives cannot give us even the silhouette of that which underlies the living actuality of a State as its essential form. For the unwritten, that is the indescribable, yet so unusual, so readily felt, so self-evident, by far outweighs everything else. If we seriously subject an existence-unit of history to the constraint of a written constitution, and then critically fix our eyes upon its form, we soon find out that it is no longer “in condition” to wrestle successfully in and with history. This holds equally true for the smallest as for the largest unit in the stream of history, for a family as well as for a nation.
However different their ideas of a State was from the concept of their forefathers, the idea which underlaid the historical manifestation of our Founding Fathers, they had to act consciously or unconsciously under the spell of the culture of their ancestors. For their soul would not let them do otherwise. They responded to the spell of the same culture which had produced the peoples of Europe, but not of a culture which had been produced by these peoples.
And so our Nation was born, not merely by a strong common spiritual feeling of our people, and certainly not through an already existing linguistic, or political, or zoological bond, but mainly through an idea of our spiritual Elite which had to act under the spell of a Western culture.
But what has become of this Constitution? In this Hour of Decision, the destiny question for us all now is whether our State exists in the effectiveness of the spirit of our Constitution, not in the moral of an impractical dreamer and Brotherhood-Babbler, but in the steadiness, sureness, and superiority of political leadership, or whether the strength of our constitutional leadership has been shattered and our Nation has already become the victim of an alien policy . . . forever. The question is, whether our leaders’ responsibility is still above all to a minority, to our spiritual Elite, that possesses the instinct of statesmanship and represents our Nation in the true spirit of our Constitution – or whether our “leaders” feel themselves responsible to another minority in our midst: To those spiritual members of an international, boundless, and landless Jewish Consensus, to those Jewish subjects of an alien nation, whose nation-consciousness, derived from a particular and defined world-feeling, is entirely different from ours as we have seen before.
Over the last six millennia and up to this day, the savants of the Consensus shaped their Nation’s fate by feeling for, and ascertaining, the general conviction of their associates, which could not err because the mind of God and the mind of the community are the same . . . while we, nations and individuals alike, sought to shape our future, each for himself, and fought one another – nay, annihilated one another!
So long as the world powers were without exception European powers, so long as these powers fought one another, sometimes over miserable scraps of land; so long as our own coal, industry, bank, and bourse element fought our settler and planter element in the South, the members of the Consensus could not possibly understand the passion with which we Westerners livingly experienced the decisive turns of our history and destiny. For them all this lay thirty generations back.
But things changed fundamentally when, with the beginning of our century, the visible decay of one Western state after another set in; when with the disappearance of Staatshoheit, the repressive force of one state after another in Europe vanished, when we so crowned our suicidal effort and obliged the Consensus by tearing down what centuries had built up. That was the time when the savants of the elect knew that their hour had come. At least twenty-five years before our deplorable statesmen could see it, the Consensus began to comprehend that with our entry upon the age of world wars, the transition from the eighteenth-century world of states to the imperium mundi had set in. Even today our “leaders” have not realized this hard fact. For how otherwise could be explained their state-destroying wish for “universal Brotherhood” by abdicating in favor of a supernational government?
After the Consensus in launching against all of us a yellow-brown-black offensive under a Red leadership; after stirring up a class war from below and a race war from without; after his “glorious recapture” of Jerusalem, can we now only assume that this alien nation is willing to renounce her aspiration for world domination or give up the desire to fulfill her mission? Are we really to believe that, because a few members of the upper stratum of the elect have lost every kind of inward cohesion, the Consensus will regionally fall into parts or willingly give up his worldwide cohesion; once our famous UN will declare Universal Peace, once our own world pacifists and Brotherhood-Babblers, our theorists and professors, our utopians and humanists, our lawmakers and shoemakers, will have signed away our historic rights and our freedom?
Once on this globe we all have become brethren, will the Consensus give up the accomplishment of the task that in its belief historic necessity has set for him? Would not Universal-Brotherhood presuppose the absurd assumption that Yahweh, in order to become Jesus’ benign and Heavenly Father of all humanity, undergoes a sudden and extraordinary transformation? That wrathful, irascible, unforgiving God of our Jewish brethren; that Yahweh from whom the elect expects that “he crushes the unrighteous . . . that he lay waste the country of the unbelievers . . . that he destroys – with a rod of iron – their being . . . that he breaks their pride like a potters’ vessel . . . that he makes nations flee before him at his threatening . . . that he will gather his ‘holy people’ and rule over them in righteousness . . . that neither settler nor stranger shall dwell among them (in Palestine!) . . . that, so long as they serve him, he will hold the Gentiles in yoke.” (Psalm of Solomon, Ps. 17)
Does anybody believe in such an absurd transmutation? Will the majority of the elect follow the small minority, the stubborn and zealous few, and return to the “Israeli homeland” and leave us in peace? When, on the other hand, history teaches us how in the “Exile” this alien nation increased enormously beyond the old small clan limits, when she destroyed the political power of one after the other of her host peoples by manipulating at will their economic potentialities, when the dispersed majority turned so successfully to “conversions” as the only form of conquest open to a landless nation? Do we not have right here the best proof of the immense aggressive power of this “conversion”? When we can daily witness how the Consensus succeeds in the more and more radical political elimination of our own spiritual Elite, of those few who alone would still be able to find their way from thinking in terms of party lines to thinking in terms of statesmanship? The more radical this elimination, the more completely is our electoral mass delivered by their party leaders into the hands of the Consensus.
And so with that, the Consensus has now succeeded in changing the name of our Republic to the finest sounding of all, freedom and democracy, but in reality it has turned it over to the worst thing of all, to the mob, ruled by the Consensus. Yet, not satisfied with their “remodeling” job over here, our wire-pullers now even force us to impose their “paradise” of a State upon our brother nations and to reject every refusal of acceptance with the warning: “Und willst du nicht mein Bruder sein, so schlag’ ich dir den Schӓdel ein!”
But what are the upper strata of our society and our “leaders” doing to stem this progressive Bolshevization of our masses? Where is the opposition of graded social structure against our town-masses, of tradition against mob-rule, of the higher existence of the few against the lower of mass-labor, when at best we can see only our Me-Too-Politicians seeking in vain a conciliatory middle course against the radical tendencies of our misguided masses? As if this radical age would permit compromises! As if this will to the middle way was nothing else but the senile wish for peace at any price, even the price of our liberty! Can we discern as yet any other focus of resistance against this diabolically organized mob-rule? Is this revolution not striding unchecked towards its ultimate decision with the historical recklessness of a terrible destiny to which we and all the other white peoples must inevitably succumb . . . if not checked by a handful of thoroughbreds, by some individuals who make history? Or are we waiting with our counter-measures for a real “emergency” – for the day, that is, when the Consensus will have succeeded in its effort to join physically the force of class war from within with those of race war from without? Neither of these two Revolutions will disdain the aid of the other because it despises its supporters, for a common hatred against the white man extinguishes their mutual contempt.
Can we for one moment doubt that this planned joining of these forces would have been accomplished long ago had it not been for a temporary miscarriage of the Master Plan! When with the appearance of the Red Fascist (!) Stalin and the “abdication” of Trotsky, the Consensus’ State within the Red State had to go more and more underground; when Marxian Bolshevism retreated before the furor of an Asiatic “Horde,” led by a new Genghis Khan.
 Kerry Bolton, Yockey: A Fascist Odyssey (London: Arktos, 2018), p. 236.
 Ibid., pp. 296, 300-306.
 Spengler, The Hour of Decision (New York: Alfred A Knopf, 1934), the chapters “The White World-Revolution” and “The Colored World-Revolution.”
 It seems to be the German word veredeln that is intended, which means “to ennoble.”
 For this chapter, the title was written as “Brotherhood?” in imitation Hebrew lettering.
 “If you won’t be my brother, I will slay you!” This is a famous quotation from Bernhard von Bülow (1848-1929), who was Chancellor of Germany from 1900 until 1909, which he said during a speech in the Reichstag on December 10, 1903.