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.
On the Jewish question at least, continental Europeans are far superior to British and Americans. Anglo-Saxons seem to always betray continental Europeans to the Eternal Kike ala Churchill. Is it a coincidence that America, which was founded by English settlers, is today pro-Jewish to an extent that is almost psychopathic?
I agree with Hunter.
Having lived in Ireland, Britain and South Africa and having met people from all over both Old and New Worlds, I believe Colonials almost always have much healthier racial attitudes than Old Worlders.
Colonials are also more inclined to believe that land is seized by force while Old Worlders believe in some sort of human right to have their ancient nations.
anon,
Much of that can be ascribed to simple naivete on our behalf, especially in America’s case. It’s little wonder that Central and Eastern Europe have a superior understanding of the Jewish Question. They’ve had Jews. There’s nothing uniquely craven or decadent about America, and countless nations have been reduced to nightmarish parodies of their true selves when they were in this same predicament at some point in the past.
When Americans awaken as a people to the depth and scope of what’s been done to them, I trust that their reaction will remind the European intellectuals and clergy who ridicule us that we not only brought our European blood to the new world, we brought some the best blood and highest traditions with us.
Or, at least it will if I have any say in the matter.
anon,
Say what you like about America, but we can at least speak our minds in this country without worrying about being prosecuted by a “Human Rights Commission” for the crime of “xenophobia.”
And in Yockey’s defense, his analysis of the American situation is a bit more nuanced than what one might carry away from reading this article or listening to the fratricidal anti-American jackals lurking about.
It seems Francis Parker Yockey was an educated analyst but made the 8-Points of Error just noted. In the end his life was like Don Quixote… wrestling with illusions. Sad!
About the first point (“Racial Consciousness”), we must remember that old Europe was overwhelmingly full of Europeans! Other races were irrelevant. It was only in colonies (including British America which opted to import black slaves) that race was an element, hence a subject of importance. However, the Europeans certainly were tribalists and fought over which group would control almost every square inch at one time or another!
Point #5 on Enlightenment correctly brings to mind that science undermined the “Christian” (false, unbiblical, and unscientific) tradition of the unity of all humans: an error that grew unchallenged in racially homogeneous Europe.
Science showed that the Earth is immensely old, life here is almost as old, and several kinds of humans appeared long before “Adam” (ca 4000 BC using the dominant type of estimated from Bible geneology). So Christians must deal with these “others” only marginally addressed in the Bible. (Eg such as other ambiguous “living creatures” named in Genesis one.) Most commercial “churching” – the religion franchise operators! – prefer to ignore this fact, which would drive some folks away from their pews and their collection plates! So they push a literal six-day creation around 4000 BC, which draws manipulatable folks who really don’t want to use logic and think. Sad!
Another Yockey is a Christian and a scientist of note!
Hubert P Yockey in 1990s wrote “Information theory and Molecular Biology.” Basically he shows that when data is replicated in living systems, you wind up with equal or LESS information being transmitted to offspring, unless there is an input of MORE coherent/useful information, which requires in Inputter…. the hidden (at the quantum level of “randomness”) hand of God controlling evolution.
Darwin and company merely saw this as a “black box” and were clueless as to how it ran. So they assumed there was no God role.(Darwin did not even know Mendel genetic outcomes, and DNA was far in the future!) But your franchise “church” operators don;t want to deal with such complexities and facts. They are basically lazy! So Christianity is labelled an idiot’s box by many folks. Sad!
So my vote for Genius goes to Hubert Yockey, not F.P.Y.
The “Human Rights Commission” and similar phenomenon in Europe can be attributed to ZOG’s influence in Europe ever since 1945. Had NS Germany won the war, the world would be a much better place today.
We are creating a new people, even a book reviewer from the NYTs has said as much after reviewing some black man’s whiteness screed. Both Spengler and Yockey were too spiritual by a degree, with Spengler nearly ruining his opus by his admiration for Boaz’s jewish shtick, and Yockey was clearly stressed when he wrote “Imperium”, so both were flawed.
But then again everything is flawed, the evolutionary ladder being treacherous and all nothing comes out perfect.
Racial consciousness only arises through confrontation with different races. It is merely a mode of self defense that disappears when no longer needed. It will probably be the globally rising tide of colored peoples that will create such a thing as WN also in Europe, a concept previously unheard and unthought of, not even by the Nazis. More likely will be that Europeans will not be able to reach about their past, where everybody has with everybody else a bone to pick… only in a colonist and “multicultural” country (which the US has always been, even if you only take White/caucasian people as a measure) the idea of WN could come up.
Are WN’s in general supportive or opposed to overseas imperialism? If we are supportive, there seems to be a cognitive dissonance because we essentially want racial separation, and imperialism breeds miscegnation through constant interracial contact and other forms of degeneracy.
anon,
WNs are more than generally opposed to overseas imperialism, we’re overwhelmingly, damn near universally, opposed to it. With the exception of some philo-Semitic curiosities executing elaborate “deep game” strategies, nobody I’ve spoken with who professes to be pro-White is pro-colonialism.
Strange isn’t it, because we are painted as supremacists and conquerors of other races while the cosmpolitan ZOG forces are the real supremacists.
I would like to bring to mind Dermot Walsh’s comment at the top. British people were not ‘racially conscious’, they were merely greedy, parasitic colonialists who didn’t mind stabbing other Europeans in the back when the Big Jew told them to (ie, Boer Wars, WWII). Take a look at the UK today.
Disregarding all the chicken-and-egg arguments, if the United States hadn’t picked a fight with Germany then Europe might be much different today.
anon,
There isn’t a Human Rights Commission in the United States.
anon,
Did Germany stab Europe in the back when the Third Reich allied with Imperial Japan? The Japanese sought to conquer Australia and New Zealand.
Imperial Japan wanted the same thing for itself that Germany wanted, namely a self-reliant autarkic regional block with itself as the main power. It was natural that Germany would ally with Japanese nationalists?
This post contained a number of serious oversimplifications of Yockey’s views on America and I encourage interested parties to seek out Yockey’s work and read it themselves.
I wasn’t responding to Yockey so much as O’Meara.
anon,
So, it is natural that Japan should conquer Australia and New Zealand, as well as Malaysia, Hong Kong, Burma, Vietnam and other European possessions in East Asia? And it is natural that Germany should ally with Japan.
And this is not a betrayal of Europe, openly forming an alliance with a non-White country bent on destroying White countries, but Britain betrayed Europe by allying with Poland, a White country? Is that your argument?
Is it natural that Europeans had possessions in East Asia in the first place?
Britain was in the hands of the kike Rothschild family, so whatever it did was betrayal and heinous.
Hunter,
While I don’t think all or even most of Yockey’s, as you call it, ‘romantic portrait of Europe’ is off base, you do make some valid criticism to his views of America. However…
On Point #6: While one cannot deny that if Europeans had a racial consciousness similar to its former colonial peoples (Americans, Boers, etc.), they’d have had less trouble, but neither can one deny that America’s involement in both world wars was anything but positive.
In the case of WWI, Woodrow Wilson (the man who gave us the income tax and the federal reserve) saw dollar signs when he decided to drag America into what was a European conflict, and in turn tipped the balance in favor of the Allies. Had America stayed out, at the very least, there would have been a stalemate on the Western Front and there wouldn’t have been a communist (read: Jewish) takeover of Germany in the immdiate post-war period. Not sure If I can say the same for Russia, as the Imperial Gov’t had its own unique set of problems, but perhaps the Russians would’ve been spared too and the monstrosity that was the USSR and the Holodomor wouldn’t have come about.
But even still, there was nothing in it for us, just the British and the French. It was pointless, because all we did was increase the British Empire’s territory, gave France not only Alsace and Lorraine but control of the German coal fields in the Ruhr, and left the Germans with a divided country, dispalced citizens, and outrageous reparations charges. And if one want’s to be real cynical, our involvment indirectly paved the way for Lenin to take over the Russian Empire.
American’s fears were realized and the aftermath of WWI made us even more isolationist. But not enough.
When World War II broke out in Europe (thanks once again to the British and the French, who turned what would have been a German-Polish border skirmish into a world-wide conflict), FDR tried every which way to get America into the conflict as well, and for much of the same reasons as last time. Except this time, the Jews went all out in order to get their way. But, after almost 3 years of giving aid and support to Britian (and later the Soviets) and baiting Germany to make the first move, it didn’t work. This was done in spite of the fact that the VAST majority of Americans wanted nothing to do with the European war, and that we were offically a neutral contry. But FDR’s Plan B, the backdoor approach, ended up doing the trick. The rest, is history.
As Sam Davidson and anon pointed out earlier, if we didn’t interfere in either of the world wars, the world would be a much different place than it is today. Most likely better. Unfortunately, we’ll never really know. All we can do now is learn from our mistakes, and rectify them both here and in Europe.
Hunter,
While me may not have a dejure HRC we certainly have defacto ones strewn about our society and government. At least Europe doesn’t have Affirmative Action programs and quotas.
Germany allied with Japan under duress (occasioned by Anglo-American hostility). What’s your excuse?
I hope we don’t have to refight WW2 *again* on this thread. The Hitler’s Birthday thread is still available in the archives. Perhaps additional arguments could be appended to it?
“… but Britain betrayed Europe by allying with Poland…”
Yes. Britain didn’t “ally” with Poland, she set her up and used her like a pawn.Then she cynically discarded her like a used wrapper.
It did not escape Yockey that the racially destructive ideas of egalitarianism, free trade, and the like were all invented in Europe.
But in Europe, their influence and growth were retarded by the persistence and power of pre-modern traditional institutions, including established churches, monarchies, and landed aristocracies. They were, moreover, sustained by widespread and deeply rooted traditional attitudes in the populace. These institutions and attitudes also retarded the growth of Jewish power.
But these institutions were abolished in the United States. And the Americas and other colonies were settled by Europeans whose attachment to tradition and homeland was relatively weak, else they would not have moved to the New World. These factors allowed race-destroying ideas to gain dominance over healthier tendencies and Jews to gain more power faster in the US than in Europe.
In Yockey’s view, the race destroying tendencies and Jewish power became consolidated when Franklin Roosevelt became US President. With the destruction of the Axis and the creation of NATO, the US unleashed and established the same combination of race-destroying universalism and malicious Jewish particularism in Western Europe (and now Eastern Europe).
Yockey is not arguing that this outcome COULD NOT have come about in some other way, but that IN FACT IT DID happen that way.
Generally agree
“5) 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.”
I think that’s true but i think there’s another Enlightenment-based reason as well. As someone who learnt to be racial over time i’ve been scrunching my head trying to think of the multicult ideas that influenced me in the other direction and one is the idea that racial ideas are “just” about skin colour i.e they’re irrational and irrational is bad in our culture. For people that aren’t racial naturally i think all the science and HBD stuff is critical – hence why the other side has been so desperate to suppress it.
“8.) Corruption – European nationalists have claimed for centuries that poor, innocent Europe is being corrupted by hopelessly decadent America.”
I don’t know about pre-WWII but since then i’d say the anti-white and anti-traditional PC culture that has grown in Europe has come from America via cinema, TV and academic ideas. The ideas were often European in origin and needed European leftists to pick up and use them but i don’t think PC could have worked without the propaganda bombardment from Hollywood.
However i think that’s a product of America and the American media being so powerful rather than America as a nation – the ideas being spread aren’t European or American.
The key thing i think is American strengths and weaknesses are often the same. For example the lack of a rigid class structure is a strength in many ways but also made it much easier for a hostile group to infiltrate. I’d say the same about Europe – some of the strengths are also weaknesses depending on the situation.
Although not a philosophical ‘Yockeyite’ myself, I can see and understand much of his thinking, both negative and positive. He was a very insightful visionary, who, like many of us today, had to witness the genetic, political and ideological disasters of his day. He was trying to mentally sort out the causes and consequences of the historical events of his time. He was a living witness to the unfolding, destructive debacle before him. He saw the Anglo West as foolish messianic spoilers, who were digging their own intellectual, political and genetic death pits. That’s why some sentient observers have labeled this development as the ‘Suicide of the West’, or the ‘Death of the West’. Despite this, Yockey saw that White America was still an integral part, or an extension of the European racial and cultural matrix.
The aberrant thinking that has fostered this poisoned, Western/White mindset, is the same Zeitgeist that is driving our racial/national dilemma today. I have thought about the same issues and problems that he dwelled upon and have tried to sort out the basic driving dynamics of the historical process, just as most of the sincere posters at this particular site have probably done. I can echo the sentiments of Trainspotter and many others, that there are many factors involved in the state of our current national and racial miasma. The key elements of our psychological racial foibles have to be identified and realistically assessed, in order to be dealt with in any meaningful way. Phenomena, whether religious, cultural, political or genetic, that are inhibiting our survival, need to be identified, examined and factored into real solutions. We can cast blame in many directions, and forever examine all of the compounding variables, but ultimately, we have to figure out a way to re-program our own people, in spite of themselves. An occupied nation cannot free itself without first liberating its own mind. At present, our people are culturally corrupted and intellectually crippled, and in critical need of a vigorous detoxification.
HW,
A few quibbles here and there.
“Germany’s brief flirtation with racialism was due to Anglo-American influence. Eugenics and Darwinism were also imported into Germany from Britain and America.”
Heavy emphasis on the world “flirtation” here.
Aside from the idea of applying scientific discourse to their peculiar form of racialism, I can’t think of anything else that would qualify as an ideological import from the Anglo-American world. The bulk of National Socialist ideology strikes me as being deeply alien from our Anglo-American heritage.
“It is commonplace in racialist circles to deplore the Enlightenment.”
Really?
I think you are confusing racialist critiques of the modern world as being directed against the Enlightenment.
“The Enlightenment lionized science which undermined the old Christian ideal of the unity of humanity.”
As a Christian, I really have to disagree with this statement as there is nothing internal to Christian doctrine nor its historical understanding that would support such a claim.
On the other hand, Mencius Moldbug has argued that the ideas behind the current egalitarian mainstream have 19th century Quaker origins in the doctrine of the “psychic unity of mankind” as developed by James Cowles Prichard. Of course, he fails to mention the German anthropologist Adolf Bastian, who advanced the same idea on purely scientific grounds and who taught the infamous Franz Boas. Personally, I think that Moldbug’s angle is that he’s trying to pin the blame for the current egalitarian hegemony on a form of Protestant Christianity, effectively absolving his Jewish heritage.
“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.”
Yes but 20th century European nationalism was also heavily influenced by its own wellspring of Romanticism. The knife cuts both ways here.
The better answer is that anti-racism has its roots in socialism. Socialist ideals and socialist values were marinated in egalitarianism from the very beginning! It’s not a mistake that Radical Republican Thaddeus Stevens turned to Robert Dale Owen (the son of Robert Owen and founder of English socialism) for the writing of the first draft of the dreaded Fourteenth Amendment.
This could have been summed up in one sentence: You live around niggers, you become racial. Well, no shit Sherlock. As soon as Europeans came into close contact with other races they became racial…Duh, duh, duh. Europeans wrote about race wherever they cme in close proximity with other races. What is going on here? Intentionally misrepresenting the jewish/American school of anthropology as “German” is highly questionable. Also, on one hand you state that Enlightenment philosophers were racialist, yet you state European nations were never racially conscious? Do not see the contradiction here?
You offered nothing in way of criticism or analysis of Yockey.
And the Enlightenment was about reason, and reason as dictator. It is reason that denys the irrational. Bravery, honour, faith, these are all irrational. Desire is irrational, not reasonable. Reason and science cannot dictate. That is why racialists explore this issue, reason becomes a tyranny if you are not careful.
Why is it “rational” to be a racialist at all? Isn’t just easier to go with the flow, or whatever way the wind blows????? That would be “reasonable.”
Why do we feel attracted to this person or that person? What explains sexual desire? It is not chemical alone, no. You see?
The problem is that nobody in America in 1789 could foresee the Jews. (and that “quote” I see passed around about Ben Franklin is written in a tone more reminiscent of 20th century antisemitism than Ben Franklin’s 18th century prose. I’ve read Franklin’s Autobiography, the “quote” is most likely a forgery.) No one at the constitutional assembly could imagine that anyone would ever tell them they should bed down with blacks, import Mohammedians, Chinamen, celebrate “gay marriage” etc. Such would have been as unimaginable as the idea of drilling a hole in your skull for kicks.
Yockey on Rationalism, the Enlightenment, and the corrosive nature of Rationalism’s political offshoot, Liberalism:
Francis Parker Yockey, Imperium (1948; Costa Mesa, CA: Noontide Press, 1962), 208-223.
“the ideas behind the current egalitarian mainstream have 19th century Quaker origins in the doctrine of the “psychic unity of mankind” as developed by James Cowles Prichard.”
I think the *ideals* that are used as the *marketing* for the current ideology came from white people with an excessive amount of group altruism genes – like Quakers – but the actual ideas themselves are just jewish ethnic warfare. It’s like a box with a picture of a teddy bear on the outside but a scorpion on the inside.
The current mainstrean isn’t egalitarian, it uses egalitarianism as marketing because that stuff works on a lot of white people but in reality the current mainstream is blatantly anti-white. 3000 years ago when they were doing this to Assyrians or Hittites they would have said stuff that worked with Assyrians and Hittites.
It is disingenuous to associate Franz Boas with “German anthropology” or Germany at all. Jews are not Germans.
If you want to see what real “German anthropology” looked like, I urge you to plunge into the works of this man:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_F._K._G%C3%BCnther
Robert Campbell,
Thank you for the excerpt, I suppose HW was responding to Yockey’s implied critique of the Enlightenment. However, this critique might be unique to Yockey as I’ve never seen it before in the writings of other racialists.
On second thought, Yockey may not actually be a racialist. Consider the following paragraph taken from Wikipedia on the influence of Yockey’s ideas:
He was quite the oddball.
In that long rant, he gives a description of the increasing rationalization of the world, which he describes as ‘liberalism’ and doesn’t like it, and then goes for the next part to complain that ‘liberalism’ is an escape into a fantasy world. A fairly contradictory argument.
He was also rather unique at the time (along with Evola) in his advocacy of a spiritual, as opposed to biological, understanding of race.
He’d be right at home in modern day neo-conservativism then, with the concept that ‘America is an idea’ and a ‘set of values’.
Campbell and Wandring,
All that I was trying to say in the paragraph that you are both reacting to is that the idea of a “psychic unity of mankind” has Quaker as well as non-Quaker origins and that Moldbug’s theory of Protestant Christianity being the taproot of modern egalitarianism is self-serving in that it is meant to vindicate his Jewish parentage.
These other questions about the true political role of egalitarian doctrine or what to identify as being authentic German anthropology are sidebar issues insofar as I’m concerned.
Wallace,
Your eight rhetorical points aside, there is one basic question here: The primacy of our mother soil and father culture.
If America – its origin and destiny – is not European, then what is it?
Greg,
The British had a monarchy, an aristocracy, and an established church – all signs of order, tradition, and authority – and they were the ones who adopted the silly idea of “free trade” and spread it around Europe and throughout the world. America was ridiculed at the time by European economists like Adam Smith.
Look at France. Under the Catholic Church and Bourbon monarchy, France nurtured Robespierre, Danton, and the Jacobins who were successful in overthrowing and destroying the traditional order. The French Revolution degenerated to a point that it shocked much of America into reaction under Washington and Adams.
Germany sired Marx and Engels. Yockey sings the praises of Prussia and bashes America, but Bismarck’s Germany was infiltrated by Jews who were taking over whole sectors of the German economy and academia long before the ADL was created here. The reason that Hitler had such a Jewish problem on his hands was because the Jews had been so successful in taking over Germany over the previous fifty years.
Spain famously collapsed into civil war between communists, fascists, and anarchists.
Italy had fascists and communists. In Italy, the fascists won and took over, but would never have risen to power if the communists were not such a powerful threat to the existing order.
Austria was full of Jewish radicals. The “Austrian School” of economics migrated to the United States where it has played an important role in spawning the libertarian movement in this country.
Russia had anarchists, communists, and socialists. The Bolsheviks won there and destroyed the established order and created the world’s first socialist state. In contrast, the Communist Party USA never became a powerful force in American politics.
You would think the more settled European countries would have proven less susceptible to political radicalism than Colonial America. History shows otherwise. In Europe, the traditional order was discredited and waned to such a degree that upstarts like the communists and fascists were able to take over entire countries.
notuswind,
“He was quite the oddball.”
It makes sense if you see the ideas dominating after WWII as being a natural extension of Western democratic thought and Stalin’s partial overthrow of the original jewish Bolshevik leadership as a return to traditional European aristocratic forms. I don’t agree with either of those premises but they are logically consistent in theory.
H. Rock White,
“In that long rant, he gives a description of the increasing rationalization of the world, which he describes as ‘liberalism’ and doesn’t like it, and then goes for the next part to complain that ‘liberalism’ is an escape into a fantasy world. A fairly contradictory argument.”
To me that sums up the conflict. Simplfying, the Enlightenment for want of a better word produced two strands, one moral, one scientific. He didn’t like the outcome he saw at the time and grew to dislike both strands but in reality left-liberalism works by promoting one strand exclusively while suppressing the other. The scientific strand was the antidote to the moral strand going too far but it’s been suppressed.
Adam Smith was an “Enlightenment” thinker…Oh well.
“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.”
As I read and learned more, or rather came across more specialized treatments of many individuals, I began to see flaws in what so many imagine and romanticize as what America was actually intended to be.
Fat too often have I read detailed treatments of the men who came here to America, and I am talking about the real “movers and shakers” here, the men who actually had the money, the clout, and the backing to shape this colony into what it was to be, and not the peons and indentured servants and such who came here to get a few acres to build a house and live and who, apparently, so many take as the ones whose wishes somehow had something to do with anything and formed the “Greatest country on earth” and freedom this and noble that descriptions used to bring warm and fuzzy feelings to people.
Fat too often do I see where these men were known for their skill at lawyering and for “the finesse of their pens.” Far too often do I see where it is obvious they came here to carve out business and financial empires.
So, I am left wondering: IS America really that much different than WHAT these men envisioned? I think probably not. I think it likely that we have all been too much taken in by romanticizing,and not paying too much attention to WHO and WHAT the men who came over here really were (again, I am talking about the men who actually had a say, and not the peons. And no, I’m not saying “peons” to denigrate, but to state a fact and to get real and recognize who has say and who doesn’t.)
America, unlike Western Europe, nurtured a sense of White racial consciousness for over three centuries. Segregation was extinguished in the American South in the 1960s. It took thirty years of brainwashing for Southern racial attitudes to erode to the national norm.
It was the colonies, not Europe itself, that held out the longest against anti-racism. See Britain vs. Rhodesia or Belgium vs. Katangan Whites. In South Africa, apartheid lasted until the 1990s, whereas Russia was banning “racism” and “anti-Semitism” in the 1920s.
notuswind,
“All that I was trying to say in the paragraph that you are both reacting to is that the idea of a “psychic unity of mankind” … (snip) … the true political role of egalitarian doctrine or what to identify as being authentic German anthropology are sidebar issues insofar as I’m concerned.”
My point probably looks pedantic but it’s actually about tactics (everything i say is always about tactics somehow).
You can directly attack “liberalism” as it’s currently defined with a competing ideology or you can try and undermine it by pointing out inconsistencies in how they apply their own rules i.e
discrimination is bad vs discrimination is good
or
discrimination is bad vs you discriminate against white people
Tactics.
Hunter,
Since WW II, the US has either been the leading force instituting anti-white and Judeo-centric institutions and culture in Europe (Yockey’s thesis) or it hasn’t.
Are you arguing that it hasn’t played that role?
If the US does play that role — and I think it does — that requires an explanation. I think that Yockey’s explanation makes sense.
Maybe things could have been different. I think that all your critique amounts to is that assertion. But in fact, they were not.
America is the engine of white racial destruction and Jewish power in the world today. And if Yockey’s explanation is wrong, then come up with a better one.
There is a difference between offering an alternative explanation of fact X and arguing that fact X did not have to happen. I think that you are doing the latter, and for what it is worth, Yockey would agree that it was not necessitated in some causal sense. But it did happen. Why?
“Since WW II, the US has either been the leading force instituting anti-white and Judeo-centric institutions and culture in Europe (Yockey’s thesis) or it hasn’t. ”
Yes, and I note that European countries, or at least their governments at the time, were having shit fits about so many American niggers stationed in their countries. Even Churchhill spoke out about it and obviously didn’t want them there. And we flooded Germany after the war with niggers and it is obvious “our” goverment wanted them to fuck as many German women as they could. And you can ask any serviceman who was stationed there about this, and I mean years after the war.
I should also point out that the British sent many or most of the half black babies fathered by niggers during and after the war BACK over here to the US.
Yockey may have had some good points about America’s destructive influence on the West but his idea that true Rightists should seek an alliance with the far left and support the spread of Communism and Third World anti-colonial movements show the limitations of his thinking.
Notuswind,
I think Yockey’s analysis of the nature of Russian Communism in Eurasia vis-a-vis the entrenchment of Zionism within the American establishment was remarkably prescient rightist thinking.
I agree with him that the race of the spirit is the most important of the four “race types” Evola delineated. To put this in Yockey’s words, “Race is, in the first instance, how a man feels.” If you are not a “man of race,” or racially conscious, then you are truly “raceless,” for all practical purposes, regardless of your biological origin. However, it is important to remember that although the “race of the body” is the least important of the types, it is still a necessary prerequisite for participation in the Organic States created by men of race.
This view of race is certainly “odd” in comparison to the modern, materialistic view of race, which focuses solely on the race of the body, but I think it speaks to some profound truths about the nature of who we are, and it is congruent with much Classical thinking on “race,” although they never called it that.
Since WW II, the US has either been the leading force instituting anti-white and Judeo-centric institutions and culture in Europe (Yockey’s thesis) or it hasn’t.
If that were true, then such things as laws against ‘racist speech’, gay marriage and acceptance of homosexuality, opposition to capital punishment and life sentences, would have began in the US and then spread to Europe, but the reverse is true: these things all happened in Europe before coming to the US. Also the white birthrate in the US is higher than in most European countries.
Europe is ‘ahead’ of the US in overall racial statistics, but that is only because of a pre-existing black population and a large land border with Mexico.
To put this in Yockey’s words, “Race is, in the first instance, how a man feels.” If you are not a “man of race,” or racially conscious, then you are truly “raceless,” for all practical purposes, regardless of your biological origin. However, it is important to remember that although the “race of the body” is the least important of the types, it is still a necessary prerequisite for participation in the Organic States created by men of race.
That I think is a fatal error, and easily leads to the modern ‘conservative’ viewpoint that nonwhites who ‘act white’ can be accepted and integrated into society. If you don’t make biology the #1 emphasis, it gets cast by the wayside.