Reading through the Francis Parker Yockey essay, I am reminded of why I left behind that stage of my ideological career. I was initially enthralled with Yockey due to his sweeping knowledge of history and philosophy. As I learned more about these subjects in my own right, largely inspired by his influence, I began to see the flaws in his analysis.
Where to begin?
1.) Racial Consciousness – White racial consciousness organically grew out of black slavery and the American frontier experience. Creating a White ethnostate is a peculiarly American project. The whole tradition of using race as a marker of ethnic identity started in America and the other colonies.
Europeans never defined themselves in racial terms. The British and Spanish did to a lesser extent after accumulating their colonial empires, but most European nations were never “racially conscious” in the American sense.
Germany’s brief flirtation with racialism was due to Anglo-American influence. Eugenics and Darwinism were also imported into Germany from Britain and America.
The German school of anthropology, which Franz Boas brought to America, had traditionally stressed the importance of culture over heredity. By an accident of history, the German culturalist school of anthropology triumphed in “race materialist” America while Anglo-American hereditarianism was exported to Nazi Germany.
2.) Economics – The Yockey essay posits the existence of “continental Europeans attached to Listian economics.” List’s own “National System” of economics was inspired by his observations of America’s economic development and Alexander Hamilton’s theories.
In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, it was the U.S. that hid behind its high tariff wall and the American state that constantly intervened in the private economy to promote “internal improvements,” the greatest of which was the Panama Canal.
“Yurop” was the world epicenter of the “free trade” movement. America only switched to “free trade” after the Second World War when the rest of the industrialized world was laying in smoldering ruin.
3.) Tradition – This idea that Europeans were attached to authority, tradition, and landed property is widely off the mark. Europe was the site of the French Revolution and Bolshevik Revolution. There was nothing traditional about the NSDAP in Germany or the Fascists in Italy; it was the decline of traditional authority that led to the triumph of Fascism, National Socialism, and Communism.
4.) Liberalism – America was founded as a republic. The American Founders considered themselves republicans, not liberals. Liberalism has traditionally been associated with the Netherlands and British Empire. America became infatuated with “liberalism” in the 1920s and 1930s.
5.) Enlightenment – It is commonplace in racialist circles to deplore the Enlightenment. If only the Enlightenment had never happened, everything would be swell, racially speaking. This is another old chestnut.
Most of the Enlightenment philosophers were racialists. It was the Enlightenment that inspired the first systematic attempts to classify the human races. The Enlightenment lionized science which undermined the old Christian ideal of the unity of humanity.
The roots of anti-racism can be traced back to Romanticism. In reaction to the Enlightenment, the Romantics glorified the “noble savage” and the primitive. They deplored modern industrial civilization. The modern love affair with the negro and all the screeds about how European imperialism has “oppressed” the Third World can be laid at the door of Romanticism, not the Enlightenment.
6.) Destroying Europe – Europe immolated itself in two fratricidal World Wars. It is hardly the fault of Americans that Communism was so popular in Europe or that European nation-states could not get along. A thoughtful American might respond that if Europe had developed a greater sense of racial consciousness, it would never have blown itself to pieces and lost its world leadership.
7.) Jews – Europeans emancipated the Jews all by themselves. By the early twentieth century, the Jewish Problem was already far advanced in Germany. Jews were involved in subversive movements all across Europe.
8.) Corruption – European nationalists have claimed for centuries that poor, innocent Europe is being corrupted by hopelessly decadent America.
In fact, upon close examination, you will see that the opposite is true: communism, romanticism, socialism, feminism, anarchism, fascism, liberalism, anti-racism, anti-fascism, postmodernism, cultural relativism, and post-structuralism were imported into America from Europe.
American youth are indoctrinated in these subversive ideals in public schools which is another European innovation. The last thing they are taught is their own history and traditions.
Francis Parker Yockey was brilliant in many ways, but his demonization of America and his romanticized portrait of Europe is false and misleading. That said, I highly recommend reading him. No self respecting White Nationalist should be without a copy of Imperium in his private library.
One can and should be pan-Aryan in sympathies: when the brownies are putting our mutiliated corpses in the ground, I doubt they will construct epitaphs of ‘here lies a southern secessionist’, ‘here lies a nordic’, ‘here lies an american’. But ultimately, the only sphere of action for any one of us is in our own backyards and there needn’t be a worldwide imperium of whiteness. I have no intention of getting one internationale off of our backs only to hand our sovereignty over to another, even if pro-white. @Vlad Katonic
Well, it seems as if Yockey’s brand of ‘pan-Aryanism’ arose in very particular, individual circumstances, in ‘his own backyard’ if you will, and not necessarily out of some academic or arcane interpretation of philosophy.
This is a story that I heard of, and it is also cited in Wikipedia in the article on Yockey, that says he got his initiation into his racial Weltanschauung regarding Whiteness after being viciously assaulted by a gang of feral Negroes:
White Americans of various ethnicities and backgrounds cerrtainly have a heck of a lot in common regarding this trenchant problem, that of, as Lothrop Stoddard would call it, the ‘Rising Tide of Color’ against any and all things White, Western and European, and the various anti-White personalities and coalitions have done a good job bringing out this dormant, though necessary cooperation in the Son’s of Europa when the situation called for it.
Reminds me of one of the best quotes from Robertson’s The Dispossessed Majority:
The Hodgson paper goes well beyond demolishing the one to one argument. You and your sources have not shown that immigration had a negative effect on native birth rates.
The experts I have cited provide compelling arguments and evidence in support of the hypothesis that immigration contributed to the decline in native birth rates. Given the enormous economic and social effects of mass immigration, it would in fact be highly surprising if it had no effect on native birth rates. Criticizing this or that idea regarding the relationship between immigration and birth rates is a long way from showing that there was and is no relationship between immigration and birth rates.
Italy is a small, overcrowded nation with a relatively low non-White minority of recent vintage. So the comparison is absurd. But if that wasn’t the case; if Italy had a large non-White population and a sprawling national territory, then no, I most certainly would not. I would welcome it.
The cheap labor immigrants from southern and eastern Europe did not settle the frontier. They did not help settle the “sprawling national territory.” Free public land in the West ended about 1880. Southern Europeans got off the steamships that brought them here and went straight into tenements in Northeastern urban areas. These cities were already plenty crowded. The native American was race-replaced in many parts of the Northeast by this mass influx.
It’s quite possible 19th century immigrants from Northern Europe who helped settle the frontier benefited the founding stock by increasing carrying capacity. The 1880-1920 mass migration from southern Europe, however, did not increase carrying capacity and was harmful to the interests of Americans.
Frank Salter writes on pp. 62-63 of On Genetic Interests:
Then I’m also a poster child for why without immigrants the nation as a whole would have the racial demographics of Mississippi, Alabama and South Carolina.
1790 Census
Vermont: 99.7% white
New Hampshire: 99.4% white
Maine: 99.4% white
Massachusetts: 98.6% white
Rhode Island: 93.7% white
Connecticut: 97.7% white
New York: 92.4% white
New Jersey: 92.3% white
Pennsylvania: 97.6% white
Whole country: 80.6% white
There was not significant immigration to the United States between 1790 and 1830. Here are racial demographics from the 1830 Census.
1830 Census
Maine: 99.7% white
New Hampshire: 99.8% white
Massachusetts: 98.8% white
Rhode Island: 96.3% white
Connecticut: 97.3% white
Vermont: 99.7% white
New York: 97.4% white
New Jersey: 93.6% white
Pennsylvania: 97.2% white
Ohio: 99.0% white
Indiana: 96.3% white
Illinois: 98.5% white
Michigan Territory: 99.1% white
Whole country: 81.9% white
I hardly think “the nation as a whole” would have had “the racial demographics of Mississippi, Alabama and South Carolina” had there been no immigration.
I ignored it because it begs the question. If immigrants didn’t adversely effect native birth-rates then the Census data only shows that White ratios would have been lower. The question is immigrant effects on native birth-rates not statistical data for any given period.
You’re forgetting to factor in the natural increase of immigrant stock present before 1924. Without it, I doubt White proportions would have been as high. (Time now for a “suppositional” statement, huh Mr. Miggles?)
The Census data is relevant to the topic at hand. It shows that between 1790 and 1830 and between 1930 and 1960, periods with limited immigration, the racial demographics of the United States did not markedly worsen, as you predict would have happened without mass immigration. It is suggestive and makes one wonder what racial demographics would have been had there been little immigration from 1870 to 1930.
“The experts I have cited provide compelling arguments and evidence in support of the hypothesis that immigration contributed to the decline in native birth rates. Given the enormous economic and social effects of mass immigration, it would in fact be highly surprising if it had no effect on native birth rates. Criticizing this or that idea regarding the relationship between immigration and birth rates is a long way from showing that there was and is no relationship between immigration and birth rates.”
Your “experts” are frauds. The criticism extends beyond “this or that idea.”
“The cheap labor immigrants from southern and eastern Europe did not settle the frontier. They did not help settle the “sprawling national territory.” Free public land in the West ended about 1880. Southern Europeans got off the steamships that brought them here and went straight into tenements in Northeastern urban areas. These cities were already plenty crowded. The native American was race-replaced in many parts of the Northeast by this mass influx.”
On average “cheap labor” immigrants were better educated, more productive and less likely to go on welfare than the native born. Also, cheap labor was hardly the preserve of southern Europeans; it existed everywhere in the industrialized world. Further, many founding-stocksters were indentured servants (slaves) or the dregs of the home populace. The state of Georgia started out as a penal colony. Where exactly the southern immigrants first settled is unimportant. The national territory was big enough to absorb them in the longer term.
“It’s quite possible 19th century immigrants from Northern Europe who helped settle the frontier benefited the founding stock by increasing carrying capacity. The 1880-1920 mass migration from southern Europe, however, did not increase carrying capacity and was harmful to the interests of Americans.”
It served other legitimate functions besides increasing carrying-capacity (which, by the way, is beside the main point being discussed). It greatly benefited Americans.
http://books.google.com/books?id=axQOAAAAIAAJ&dq=italian+immigration+to+america&printsec=frontcover&source=in&hl=en&ei=_MUnTMz-N8OBlAfHqrCWBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=11&ved=0CE4Q6AEwCg#v=onepage&q=italian%20immigration%20to%20america&f=false
“The Census data is relevant to the topic at hand. It shows that between 1790 and 1830 and between 1930 and 1960, periods with limited immigration, the racial demographics of the United States did not markedly worsen, as you predict would have happened without mass immigration. It is suggestive and makes one wonder what racial demographics would have been had there been little immigration from 1870 to 1930.”
I’ve already responded to this. Between 1930 and 1960 the “white” pop. held steady because of prior immigration and it’s natural increase. The rest is simply bizarre. What may have held between 1790 and 1830 doesn’t necessarily signify that it would always hold. The process of industrialization and urbanization hadn’t begun.One highly unrepresentative 40 year period, nearly 2 centuries old, proves little to nothing.
It greatly benefited Americans.
Tell us how the mass migration of southern Italians benefited founding stock Americans. I am not interested in Wall Street Journal-type justifications ( http://books.google.com/books?id=yAMVAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA524#v=onepage&q&f=false ) about how immigration benefits “the economy” or the abstract idea-nation of “America,” while being detrimental to the interests of actual Americans. How did the weakening of national identity and unity, multiculturalism, and displacement in significant sections of the country their ancestors built benefit the old Americans?
I’ve already responded to this. Between 1930 and 1960 the “white” pop. held steady because of prior immigration and it’s natural increase. The rest is simply bizarre. What may have held between 1790 and 1830 doesn’t necessarily signify that it would always hold. The process of industrialization and urbanization hadn’t begun.One highly unrepresentative 40 year period, nearly 2 centuries old, proves little to nothing.
This is nothing but evasion and rationalization. You simply wish away data that are inconvenient for you.
On average “cheap labor” immigrants were better educated, more productive and less likely to go on welfare than the native born.
Madison Grant, The Conquest of a Continent, pp. 223-224
Madison Grant, The Conquest of a Continent, p. 232
racehist.blogspot.com/2008/11/america-as-it-might-have-been.html
“America as it might have been”
While I responded to Euro’s claims about the quality of the old stock Americans, it cannot be stressed enough that racial preservation is not contingent upon issues of superiority and inferiority.
Richard McCulloch writes:
racialcompact.com/interview.html
http://www.vdare.com/macdonald/040619_1924_immigration.htm
In arguing in favor of the 1924 Immigration Act, Representative William Vaile stated: