By Dr K R Bolton
Russia is pregnant with meaning for our own time. The actions of Russia are pivotal for the future of civilisation against the globalising tendencies of the USA and international finance capitalism. Russia has undergone a brief interregnum of subordinate status to liberal-democracy and oligarchy inaugurated by Gorbachev and maintained by Yeltsin. The rise of Putin was something of a partial coup at least against plutocracy and globalism.
American-born Western Density philosopher Francis Parker Yockey was one of the seminal Thinkers to ascertain the situation of Russia from the perspective of realpolitik at a time when the American Right was serving globalising and cosmopolitan interests by lining up behind the US Establishment to beat the war drums against the USSR with the advent of the Cold War.
In this essay the attitudes of Yockey are examined as they relate to Russia, and are put into the contexts of the present and near futures.
Yockey’s formative years were in Depression Era Chicago, where he moved in 1938 to further his education. This was at a time when many Americans were looking to either of the new experiments of the USSR, Fascist Italy and National Socialist Germany for answers to their predicament. An ideological war was being fought out between Marxism and Fascism, which manifested as a physical war in Spain. In Europe and further a field Catholics saw in the Social Doctrine of the Church an answer to the materialistic dogmas of Marxism and capitalism, and often this was translated into what could generically be termed ‘Fascism’ but is more precisely defined as ‘Corporatism’.
The most influential of these movements in the USA was the National Union for Social Justice founded by the popular ‘radio priest’ Father Charles Coughlin, who arose from obscurity at his parish in Royal Oak, Michigan, in 1926 to hit the air waves and reach millions of Americans with his message of driving out the money changers and the Bolsheviks, an endeavour that gave rise to a mass movement.
Yockey emerged as a political activist and thinker from this milieu. Born in 1917, it is known that already in 1934 he was introduced to Spengler’s Decline of the West, which was to remain a seminal influence throughout his life. Yockey was associated with Pelley’s Silver Shirt Legion, specifically it seems as a lecturer. Yockey’s first political literary effort would seem to have been written in 1939, The Tragedy of Youth, published in Father Coughlin’s widely distributed newspaper Social Justice.
It is in this social turbulence that many in the USA and throughout the world came to believe that the Bolshevik experiment in Russia was a Jewish movement. The slogan “Communism is Jewish” became an article of faith in many of the anti-communist movements that arose, including Coughlin’s and Pelley’s.
As the association with the Pelley and Coughlin movements shows, Yockey was from his adolescence drawn to the “Right” and into an anti-Jewish environment. As is well-known he was attracted to Fascism and National Socialism, had himself discharged from the military during World War II, and as a highly successful lawyer obtained a job with the prosecution team with the War Crimes Tribunals in Germany, for the purposes of infiltration and of seeking out contacts with the remnants of National Socialist in post-War Germany.
In 1947 Yockey secluded himself on the Irish coast and wrote his magnum opus Imperium, a Spengerlian tome calling for the Western Civilisation as a cultural organism to fulfil its cyclic destiny in creating an empire of the West.
At this time Yockey’s attitude towards Russia remained in the orthodox ‘anti-Semitic’ mould in continuing to view Russia as under Jewish control. Under this conspiratorial scenario generally both the USA and the USSR were viewed as equally Jewish run and in cahoots to dominate the world at the behest of a small Jewish coterie pulling the strings in both states. This attitude persisted among ‘anti-Semites’ until the collapse of the USSR. However even at this time Yockey discerned an underlying dichotomy within Bolshevism, which he saw as an alien import by cosmopolitan Jews, beneath which continued to exist the substratum of the real Russia with its own soul and its own historical mission.
Yockey draws on the history of Russia to explain the dichotomy between Jewish bolshevism and the Slavic soul, stating that such a divide goes back before Peter the Great to two ways of thinking; one that sought to ‘westernise’ Russia, imposing imported thoughts and forms upon the Slavic masses, men of ‘strong instincts’ rooted to the soil. It should here be kept in mind that when Yockey was referring to ‘Western’ forms and thinking being imposed on Russia, it is a West in its Late or Winter cycle of decay in the Spenglerian sense, Yockey’s morphology of history being fundamentally Spenglerian. Hence it can be stated that revolutionary and secularist Jews were agents for imposing ‘Western’ ideas and forms on Russia insofar as these represented the materialistic forms and economic theories inherent in Late Civilisation, the Free Trade School and the Marxist School being mirror reflections of each other.
Yockey referred to Moscow as “The Third Rome”, the new Byzantium, which despised the West in its cycle of decay, a perspective that has much meaning for the present and near future.
In Imperium Yockey states of Russia:
“Russia, the true, spiritual, Russia, is primitive and religious. It detests Western Culture, Civilization, nations, arts, State-forms, Ideas, religions, cities, technology. This hatred is natural, and organic, for this population lies outside the Western organism, and everything Western is therefore hostile and deadly to the Russian soul.
“The true Russia is the one which Petrinism tried to coerce. It is the Russia of Illya Muromyets, Minin, Ivan Grosny, Pozharsky, Theophilus of Pskov, Avakkum, Boris Godunov, Arakcheyev, Dostoievski, the Skoptski and Vassili Shuiski. It is the Russia of Moscow, ‘the Third Rome,’ the mystical successor to Rome and Byzantium. ‘A fourth there cannot be,’ wrote the monk Theophilus. This Russia identifies itself with humanity, and despises the ‘rotten West.’”
Yockey identifies this ‘westernisation’ specifically as the rationalistic philosophy imported by the so-called Jewish ‘culture distorting’ element:
“Being primitive, Russia's spiritual center of gravity is in instinct, and thus it was that even during the Rationalistic-equalitarian 19th century, Russia was a land of pogroms. The Russian felt the complete alienness of the Culture-State-Nation-Church-Race of the Jew, and the Tsarist regime marked out a Pale of Settlement in which alone Jews could reside.
“The upper Russia, the Westernized stratum which played with Western materialistic philosophy, spoke German and French, traveled to the spas of Europe, and concerned itself with European cabinet-politics, was the object of the fierce hatred of the pure Russians, the Nihilists, who embodied the wordless idea of complete destruction of the West, and the Russification of the world. Whether this great destructive Idea was expressed in the religious form of the assertion of the sole truth of Eastern Orthodox Christianity, or of the later political form of Slavophilism and Pan-Slavism, or of the present-day Marxist-Bolshevism, it continues to have the same inner imperative of destroying everything Western, which it feels is stifling its Russian soul.”
Yockey even in 1948-49 was stating that ‘Bolshevism’ could be pressed into the service of a Pan-Slavic imperialism that was to manifest with the rise of Stalin, upon the overthrow of the Jewish Bolshevist faction headed by Trotsky. Yockey would consider these questions in detail in 1952 with the occurrence of the Prague Treason Trial, which will be examined below. Yockey clearly explains these factions at work within Bolshevism at that time, albeit the factions both coinciding with destructive aims vis-à-vis the West:
“Thus, there are two Russias: the Bolshevik regime, and the true Russia underneath. Bolshevism, with its worship of Western technology, and of a silly foreign theory of class-war, does not express the soul of the true Russia. This broke out in the insurrection of the Streltse against Peter the Great, and of Pugachev against Catherine the Great. In his rebellion, Pugachev and his peasants massacred every officer, official, and nobleman that fell into their hands. Everything having any connection with the West was burned or destroyed. Whole tribes joined in the mass-movement. For three years, 1772-1775, it continued, and the Moscow court itself was at one time in danger. When arraigned after his capture, Pugachev explained that it was God's will that he should chastise Russia. This spirit is still there, since it is organic, and cannot be killed, but must express itself. This is the spirit of Asiatic Bolshevism, which is at present harnessed to the Bolshevism of the Moscow regime, with its economic-technical obsession. [Emphasis added].
At this stage, when writing Imperium, Yockey continued to regard the Russians in Hitlerite terms as the destructive Mongol hordes poised on the boundaries of the West. The strategy he advocated was for the West to exploit the divide between the Russian and Jewish factions within the Moscow regime.
“Russia is internally split; the ruling regime does not represent the true, Asiatic, religious, primitive, soul, but is a technological caricature of Petrinism, and the possibility is inherent in this relationship that one day this regime will go the way of the Romanov. This split can be used against Russia, just as it tries to use inner-revolutionary tactics against its political enemies. Such a tactic was used with success against the Romanov regime in 1917 by the West. By virtue of its physical situation, on the border of the West, Russia will, and must always, remain the enemy of the West, as long as these populations are organized as a political unit.”
Whatever Yockey’s continuing attitude towards Russians as a ‘race’ or more accurately in his terminology as a Culture-People-Nation-State, The Prague Treason Trial did result in a reorientation of thinking to the extent of Yockey regarding the Russian occupation of Europe as a bulwark against the more destructive presence of the American occupation – physically, culturally and economically. He was to become a protagonist for Soviet occupation of Europe at the height of the Cold War era, while championing the neutralist lines of many Third World leaders. Anti-Americanism rather than anti-Sovietism was to become his major preoccupation.
In 1949 Yockey, having failed to persuade Mosley to accept his ideas and even the offer for Mosley to adopt the authorship of Imperium as his own, founded with a few other ex-Mosleyites the European Liberation Front. Despite the ideological and intellectual orientation the Front did organise public meetings, and try to make Yockey’s ideology assessable to a wider audience than might be supposed. Yockey wrote the manifesto for the European Liberation Front, a cogent synopsis of Imperium, The Proclamation of London. In this latter text Yockey stated of Russia:
“Europe knows the identity of the inner enemy and that for which he is responsible. It knows that he is the worst enemy of Europe, because he masquerades as a European, but Europe has outer enemies toward whom also it must adopt a definitive position.
“The outer enemies are the Bolshevik regime of Moscow, the Jewish-American Bolshevik regime of Washington, and the Culture-State-Nation-Race of the Jew, which has now created a new centre of intrigue for itself in Tel-Aviv, a secondary New York.”
Hence, Yockey in 1949 regarded the USSR and USA in a similar scenario to that of World War II Germany as facing a hostile nexus of the two Superpowers.
“…Europe as a backward population waiting for reeducation by the American world-clown and the sadistic Jew; Europe, as a laboratory for gigantic social experiments by Moscow and for the genocide experimentation of New York and Tel-Aviv; Europe as a Black Mass of scaffold-trials, backward-looking persecution, treason, terror, despair and suicide.”
Russia had brought the Asiatics to ‘the sacred soil of Europe’, America the Blacks, and the Jews presided over the lot, as Yockey saw it.
This was still very much a time when Germany in particular was divided between the occupying powers of the western Allies headed by the USA and the USSR, however the wartime alliance would not endure, and this is fundamental to understanding Yockey’s new orientation towards Russia. Point 5 of the 12 point outline of the European Liberation Front policy, written in 1949, states: “Cleansing of the soul of Europe from the ethical syphilis of Hollywood and the Marxist Bolshevism of Moscow.”
The hope for Europe was that it embodied a spiritual Idea, as distinct from the shallow and transient materialism of the occupying powers:
“But these conditions are only external, material. The soul of Europe cannot be occupied, ruled, or dominated by Culture-aliens. Only a materialist could think that the possession of the tangible appurtenances of power guarantees the eternal continuance of power.”
However, Yockey from the start of his post-war ideology seems to have considered Russia to be very much of secondary concern in relation to the ‘liberation’ and ‘destiny’ of Europe, in contrast to the USA. The first was seen as representing the crass impacting on material existence; the second as a virus eating at the very soul of Europe through pervasive culture distortion.
Yockey in 1949 stated:
“Thus, the Liberation Front now states to Europe its two great tasks: (1) the complete expulsion of everything alien from the soul and from the soil of Europe, the cleansing of the European soul of the dross of 19th century materialism and rationalism with its money-worship, liberal-democracy, social degeneration, parliamentarism, class-war, feminism, vertical nationalism, finance-capitalism, petty-statism, chauvinism, the Bolshevism of Moscow and Washington, the ethical syphilis of Hollywood, and the spiritual leprosy of New York; (2) the construction of the Imperium of Europe and the actualizing of the divinely-emanated European will to unlimited political Imperialism.”
It is notable that the primary tasks were that of a spiritual-cultural nature, against what Yockey refers to as ‘ethical syphilis’ and ‘spiritual leprosy’ brought in as contagion by the USA, not the USSR.
In 1952 an unsigned article in Frontfighter commenting on Point 5 of the ELF programme states that the opposition to ‘the virus of Jewish Bolshevism’ [is] more readily understood, and therefore not as dangerous’ as the ‘ethical syphilis of Hollywood’.
Russia could be defeated military by a united Europe, but Europe had to defeat America on much more deeply rooted and pervasive levels, the spiritual and the cultural. Yockey also saw in 1949 that the division of Europe between the two rival Superpowers was being maintained by an emerging confrontation in which Europeans should not become involved. He did not consider that Russia could invade and hold Europe militarily for any significant time, and therefore rejected the ploy that Europe needed to be occupied under the safety of the American military umbrella. He also reminded Europeans that when they had fought Bolshevism in the recent war, they had been confronted by the same Washington regime that had supplied the wherewithal to Russia’s military:
“The Liberation Front does not allow Europe to be distracted by the situation of the moment, in which the two crude Bolshevisms of Washington and Moscow are preparing a Third World War. In those preparations, the Culture-retarders, the inner enemies, the liberal-communist-democrats are again at their posts: with one voice the churchills, the spaaks, the lies, the gaulles, croak that Washington is going to save Europe from Moscow, or that Moscow is going to take Europe from Washington. There is nothing to substantiate this propaganda.”
Yockey’s contentions were to have significance for many German war veterans and nationalists as the Cold War emerged.
That year, 1952, an event occurred in Czechoslovakia that was to result in a major tactical shift for Yockey. He explains in his essay The Prague Treason Trial the significance of the trial as signalling the reassertion of Russian over Jewish Bolshevism. Yockey began:
“On Friday, November 27, there burst upon the world an event which though small in itself, will have gigantic repercussions in the happenings to come. It will have these repercussions because it will force a political reorientation in the minds of the European elite.
“That event was the conclusion of the treason trial of the Jews in Prague, and their condemnation to death.”
The circumstances of the Prague Treason Trial are that in late 1951 Rudolf Slansky, Secretary General of the Communist Party in Czechoslovakia was arrested for ‘antistate activities’. A year later he and thirteen co-defendants went on trial as ‘Trotskyite-Titoist-Zionist traitors’. It is interesting that Trotskyite and Zionist were used in conjunction. They were accused of espionage and economic sabotage, working on behalf of Yugoslavia, Israel and the West. Eleven of the fourteen were sentenced to death, the other three to life imprisonment. Slansky and the eleven others were hanged on December 3, 1952. Of the fourteen defendants, eleven were Jews, and were identified as such in the indictment. Many other Jews were mentioned as co-conspirators, implicated in a cabal that included the US Supreme Court Justice Frankfurter, described as a “Jewish nationalist”, and Mosha Pijade the “Titoist Jewish ideologist ” in Yugoslavia. The conspiracy against the Czechoslovak state had been hatched at a secret meeting in Washington in 1947, between President Truman, Secretary Acheson, former Treasury Secretary Morgenthau, and the Israelis Ben Gurion and Moshe Sharett. In the indictment Slansky was described as “by his very nature a Zionist” who had in exchange for American support for Israel, agreed to place “Zionists in important sectors of Government, economy, and Party apparatus”. The plan included the assassination of President Gottwald by a “freemason” doctor.
With such a background it is easy to see how Yockey could regard the Trials as of such significance in regard to the USSR and Zionism; just as it is difficult to see how ‘anti-Semites’ could insist on seeing such events as part of a deceptive ploy plotted between Zionists and Communists. Interestingly, a similar scenario took place again in Czechoslovakia in 1968 when Zionists were accused of masterminding the insurrection against the state.
Yockey states that in the immediate post-war period the two wartime allies USA and USSR acted in accord, and that was epitomised in regard to the relations of both with Israel when the latter was founded in 1948:
“During the years 1945 and 1946 the coalition Jewry-Washington-Moscow functioned quite perfectly and frictionlessly. When the Israel "State" was established as the result of armed Jewish aggression, the entire world, dominated by Moscow and Washington, sang hymns of praise and congratulation. Washington recognized the new "State" de facto within a few hours of its proclaimed existence. Moscow outbid Washington in pro-Jewishness by giving de jure recognition. Both Washington and Moscow vied with one another in seeking to please the Israel operetta-state and aided it by all means moral and material. Russian diplomats boasted that at last, in Haifa, they had a warm-water port.”
I believe that those who see the pro-Israel attitude of Moscow in the earliest years of Israel’s foundation as indicative of the USSR being under the grip of a Jewish regime are in error. Stalin from the time he purged Trotsky and Trotskyites from the USSR, set a course for the USSR to be independent and ultimately hostile to the aims of the American regime. Yockey at least implies that Moscow’s backing for Israel was pragmatic in getting a Soviet footing in the region via Israel, and one might say just as much so as the Hitler-Stalin Pact. As will be considered below, Yockey realisde, even at this time, that Stalin stymied the world government proposed by the Washington regime in the immediate aftermath of World War II.
As Yockey notes, the alliance between the USSR and Israel did not hold for long. Many conspiratological historians saw this as part of a deception whereby a USA-USSR-Israel Jewish axis worked secretly in conjunction to rule the world, and in doing so tricked the Arabs into the Soviet orbit as part of this blueprint. This conspiracy theory generally held that the world was divided into two power blocs each led by the USA and USSR, and that the Cold War was a strategy to frighten all nations into one bloc or another, which would eventually be amalgamated into a world government. The view is not sustainable in this writer’s opinion, despite superficially interpreted facts such as the American technological and credit transfers to the USSR, for e.g., possible motives being beyond the scope of this article. The salient historical fact is that such a world government could have been readily achieved directly after World War II via the United Nations Organisation had it not been for the resistance of the USSR.
“And now, after a few short years, Israel is recalling its "ambassadors" from Russian vassal-states, and intensifying its anti-Russian policy from its American citadel. Volatile Jews in Israel and America cry out that Stalin is following in the footsteps of Hitler. The entire American press boils with fury at anti-semitism in Russia. Anti-semitism, warns the New York Times, is the one thing America will not tolerate in the world.
“Why this bouleversement?”
Few among the ‘Right’ seem to realise that it was Stalin who rejected the prospect of continuing the war-time alliance and assisting with the creation of a world government, which the oligarchs hoped to create in the aftermath of the war, just as their scheme to create a world government via the League of Nations in the aftermath of World War I had been abortive. Yockey writes that the first major breach in US-Soviet relations, which we might regard as the beginning of the Cold War, began in 1947:
“It began early in 1947 with the Russian refusal to surrender a part of its sovereignty to the so-called "united nations" for purposes of "control" of the atomic weapon industry. Jewish statesmen, being materialistic in their metaphysics, believe strongly in the "absolute" military power of atomic weapons, and considered it thus indispensable for the success of their policy that they control these weapons unconditionally. This control they already possessed in America through the Atomic Energy Commission, specially created and constituted so that it is beyond the reach of Congress, and responsible only to the President, who is, by the practical rules of American inner-politics, an appointee of the Culture-State-Nation-People-Race of the Jew. They sought the same degree of control of atomic weapons in Russia, and used the device of the "united nations" to submit an ultimatum to the Russian leadership on this question. 
“This was in the latter part of 1946, when the tide of atom-worship was at its height, and the minds of nearly all of the poor crop of statesmen who today conduct the political affairs of the world were fantastically dominated by a mere explosive bomb…. Thus the Jewish-American ultimatum in late 1946 was rejected, and in early 1947 the preparation for the Third World War began.”
“This Russian refusal stymied the plans of the Jewish leadership, which aimed at a surrender of both Russian and American sovereignty to the "united nations", an instrumentality dominated by the Jewish Culture-State-Nation-People-Race. Even supine, politically-unconscious America could hardly be expected to give up its sovereignty when the only other world-power unconditionally refused, and the entire policy had to be scrapped. “
While Right-wing conspiratologists cite the eminent US historian Dr Carroll Quigley, his passages on the USSR in the post-war era are ignored. Quigley is instructive however in regard to USA-USSR relations. The issue of the internationalisation of atomic energy referred to be Yockey is stated by Quigley, himself a proponent of world government, to be, “The most critical example of the Soviet refusal to co-operate and of its insistence on relapsing into isolation…”
The blueprint for the internationalisation of atomic energy was named the Baruch Plan, after Bernard Baruch, the Zionist plutocrat and perennial adviser to presidents, who headed a citizens committee in conjunction with a State Department committee.
The Russian response was recorded by Gromyko in his memoirs, recalling his days as Soviet representative on the UN Atomic Energy Commission, who states of the Baruch Plan:
“The actual intention was to be camouflaged by the creation of an international body to monitor the use of atomic energy. However, Washington did not even try to hide the fact that it intended to take the leading part in this body, to keep in its own hands everything to do with the production and storage of fissionable material and, under the guise for international inspection, to interfere with the affairs of sovereign nations.”
Bertrand Russell, the famed pacifist who thought world peace could best be achieved by A-bombing the USSR before it became too powerful, commented on the Baruch Plan and the UNO in relation to Russia:
“The US Government …. did attempt… to give some effect to some of the ideas which the atomic scientists had suggested. In 1946, it presented to the world what is now called ‘The Baruch Plan’. Unfortunately there were features of The Baruch Plan which Russia found unacceptable, as indeed was to be expected. It was Stalin’s Russia, flushed with pride in victory over the Germans, suspicious, not without reason, of the Western powers, and aware that in the United Nations it could almost always be outvoted.”
Gromyko also records how the USSR scuttled the UNO as a method for achieving world government. This repudiates the other major Right-wing conspiratological notion that the UNO was established by the USA and USSR in cahoots or as a ‘communist plot’. The USA intended that power in the UNO be vested with the General Assembly and that decisions would be settled by majority vote. Such a parliamentary system would have allowed the USA to bribe states for the required number of votes on any issue. The USSR in contrast insisted that the Security Council have the final say and that each member of the Council have the power to veto, which effectively meant that the UNO would not be able to function as intended. Gromyko writes of this: “The US position in fact allowed the UN to be turned into an instrument for imposing the will of one group upon another, above all the Soviet Union as the sole socialist member of the Council.”
The result of this was the Cold War. Yockey continues: “The next policy of the Jewish leadership was to persuade the Stalin regime by the encirclement and pressure of the "cold war" that it was hopeless to resist...”
“Because of the Russian rejection of the atomic weapon ultimatum, Russia now found its policy opposed everywhere, in Austria, in Germany, in Korea, in Finland. Those same American publicists who had become so deft at explaining Russia's need for ‘security’ as Russia seized one landscape after another, suddenly turned against Russia the accusation of ‘aggressor’...”
Of the new significance of the Prague Treason Trial Yockey wrote:
“The treason trials in Bohemia are neither the beginning nor the end of a historical process, they are merely an unmistakable turning point. Henceforth, all must perforce reorient their policy in view of the undeniable reshaping of the world-situation. The ostrich-policy is suicide. The talk of ‘defense against Bolshevism’ belongs now to yesterday, as does the nonsense of talking of ‘the defense of Europe’ at a period when every inch of European soil is dominated by the deadly enemies of Europe, those who seek its political-cultural-historical extinction at all costs.”
As Yockey astutely discerned the symbolic gesture at Prague towards the internationalist power structure changed the world situation not only for the USA but for those who believe in the destiny of Europe.’ Hence Western Destiny Thinkers and activists must henceforth regard the USSR not as a threat to Europe but as an ally in the liberation of Europe.
“That same barbaric despotism called the Russian empire and presided over by the fat peasant Stalin -- Djugashvili, who rules by his cunning a Khanate greater than all those gathered together by the mighty Genghis is today the only obstacle to the domination of the entire earth by the instrumentality called "united nations". This vast Russian empire was created by the Jewish-American hatred of Europe-Germany. During the Second World War, in order to prevent Stalin and his pan-Slav nationalist-religious entourage from concluding peace with Europe-Germany, the Jewish-American leadership gave Russian military equipment in unheard-of masses, and political promises, gifts and advantages with unheard-of largesse. …”
The significance of the Prague Treason Trial to Yockey and his colleagues was explained cogently:
“It is possible now to record the developments which have been rendered inevitable by the clear break signified by the Prague trials.
“First, and most important of all to those of us who believe in the Liberation of Europe and the Imperium of Europe: this is the beginning of the end of the American hegemony of Europe. …
“It is obvious that events which were strong enough to force Stalin to reorient his entire world-policy and to become openly anti-Jewish will have the same effect on the elite of Europe. …
“America cannot undo the Prague trials any more than Russia can. From these trials there is now no going back. They are a war-declaration by Russia on the Jewish-American leadership no matter whether or not the Russian press still wraps its explanations in wooly words disclaiming "anti-semitism". What matters in politics above all, is not what one says, but what one does. The fact is: the Russian leadership is killing Jews for treason to Russia, for service to the Jewish entity. Nothing can gainsay, or reverse this fact. The European elite will perforce note this fact and be governed accordingly. Russia has publicly before the world named its power-enemy, and has thus removed all controversy on the question of who is the real power-beneficiary of the American hegemony of Europe. 
“Henceforth, the European elite can emerge more and more into affairs, and will force the Jewish-American leadership to render back, step by step, the custody of European Destiny to Europe, its best forces, its natural, organic leadership. If the Jewish-American leaders refuse, the new leaders of Europe will threaten them with the Russian bogey. By thus playing off Russia against the Jewish-American leadership, Europe can bring about its Liberation, possibly even before the Third World War. 
“To us in Europe, the trials are welcome; they clear the air. The opponents have now defined themselves. …
“It was fatuous enough to ask Europe to fight for America, it was silly enough to ask it to "defend itself against Bolshevism"… . Is there one European -- just one -- who would respond to this war-aim? But today, openly, without any possible disguise, this is the raison d'etre of the coalition against Russia, for Russia has named its chief enemy, its sole enemy, and the sly peasant leadership of pan-Slavs in the Kremlin is not given to frivolity in its foreign policy.
“We repeat our message to Europe: no European must ever fight except for sovereign Europe; no European must ever fight one enemy of Europe on behalf of another enemy.”
The question as to the ethnicity of Joseph Stalin has significant implications for post-Lenin Russia, the emergence of the Cold War, and the manner by which the post-World War I world developed as contrary to the ‘new world order’ that was expected by the Western internationalists in the aftermath of that war.
One of the common assertions among ‘anti-Semites’ from the 1930’s was that Stalin was Jewish and continued Jewish rulership as much as his deposed rival Trotsky, albeit via different methods. For e.g. Congressman McFadden stated before Congress in 1934 that Stalin was a Georgian Jew. The major and enduring claim is that Stalin’s name Dzhugashvili means ‘son of a Jew’ in Georgian; Dzu or Ju meaning Jew.
Stalin’s great grandson Jacob Jugashvili has written of the name: “There is no word ‘Jew for Jews in the Georgian language… Jew in Georgian is ‘Ebraeli’, so the theory of ‘son of a Jew’ is simply wrong.”
Yockey’s strategy was now to aid the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe as a bulwark against the US military occupation of Europe, specifically in regard to the subjugation of the European heartland, Germany. Yockey’s message of Europe maintaining a neutralist position during the Cold War and repudiating the anti-Soviet rhetoric disguised as anti-communism and even patriotism, got some ready listeners among the anti-Bolshevik war veterans of the last war. As Yockey stated in The Prague Treason Trial these veterans who had fought a bloody war against the USSR during World War II were not about to fight the Russians at the behest of America for the purposes of keeping Europe under US hegemony. His perceptions were correct.
Yockey’s most important contacts in Europe were centred on Maj. Gen. Otto Remer and his Socialist Reich Party, founded in 1949. Yockey’s chief American collaborator was H Keith Thomson, who was reregistered with the US State Department as the American representative for the Socialist Reich Party.
In 1948 Yockey had written a number of chapters that had been intended for inclusion in Imperium, but were ‘for personal reasons’ not published. However in 1953 the MS was published in German as Der Feind Europas in Germany. The intention was apparently to publish Der Feind for the instruction of the leadership of the SRP, which had adopted a neutralist position vis-à-vis Russia. However the edition was seized and destroyed by the German authorities.
The Enemy of Europe is a concise restatement of the principal ideas in Imperium. However Yockey revised the final chapters to align them with the new developments in the Soviet bloc as he perceived them form the time of the 1952 Prague Treason Trials. While Yockey maintains his quite Hitleresque bias towards the Russians as lacking any sense of high mission or destiny, as being the ‘outer barbarians’ culturally, politically he advocates a reorientation of European liberationists towards a pragmatic attitude on the USSR.
Yockey reiterates that Russian occupation of Europe would be less harmful than American. Like the ‘barbarian’ invasions of other Civilisations, Yockey believed that the superior Western culture would be resistant to military occupation and the Russians would eventually succumb to a symbiotic relationship, which would open the way for the European culture-bearing stratum to infiltrate the Soviet bloc at all levels and into the Kremlin itself. The occupation of Europe by Russia would not result in Russification, but in the Europeanisation of Russia resulting in a peaceful ‘new Europe-Russia Symbiosis.’
Another significant positive factor Yockey saw in Russian occupation in preference to America, is that Soviet occupation would mean the elimination of the ‘inner traitor’, the class of politicos epitomised by Churchill for e.g. who while being part of the Western cultural inheritance, acted against European interests and at the behest of the Washington regime. Without the ‘inner traitor’ the petty-statism dividing Europe would give way to European integration under Russian auspices.
Such realignment saw Yockey advocating an underground resistance to American occupation, in conjunction with pro-Soviet agitation. This naturally drew the attention of various intelligence and police agencies.
Yockey seems to have pursued a pro-Russia orientation from the beginning of his activities in Europe. An FBI report on Yockey in 1953 states that according to informants, already in 1949 at the inaugural meeting of the European Liberation Front privately held in the London apartment of Baronness von Pflugl:
“Yockey immediately launched into an attack on Union Movement which he described as an instrument of US policy. Speaking in German fluently he began to praise the German policy in Germany, in particular referring to the so-called army of Seydlitz and Paulus. Yockey asked for co-operation in order to help him organize secret partisans in Western Germany who would be prepared to collaborate with the Soviet Military authorities in actions against the Western Occupying Powers.”
The report continues that Yockey spoke of the orientation of Germany eastwards. He also spoke of his aim of creating a mass circulation newspaper that would specialise in anti-American agitation. 
One of Yockey’s primary British collaborators, Guy Chesham, formerly of Mosley’s Union Movement, outlined a policy of infiltrating nationalist organisations, directing them toward a ‘violently anti-American’ policy, and ‘avoiding all anti-bolshevist conceptions.’ Chesham proposed to establish a force in England for ‘direct action against American military bases,’ as well as a popular anti-American front that might obtain funding from the Soviet Embassy.
Yockey’s final work in 1961, the year of his death, The World in Flames reaffirms his position in regard to Russia and America vis-avis Europe. Yockey predicted a Third World War and commented that ‘Russian morale is tough, because of the barbarian nature of the soldier-material;’ the American soldier material is ‘utterly worthless’ He characterised Russian policy as ‘stupid’ in comparison to American or specifically ‘Zionist’ policy which is ‘malicious.’
Yockey was incorrect in details, but correct in his perception of what Spengler called the ‘broad sweep of history’. Yockey’s principal theories of realpolitik are therefore of significance today and in the near future as a method of historical and political analyses.
Yockey correctly perceived that the USSR had changed orientation since the ouster of Trotsky. He correctly identified two ‘bolshevisms’ in the sense that ‘bolshevism’ in Yockeyan terms means an attack on the Western cultural organism: that of Moscow and that based in Washington and New York. He saw the militaristic ‘bolshevism’ of ‘Russian barbarians’ as less dangerous in the long term to the Western cultural organism than the ‘cultural bolshevism’ emanating from America.
This ‘cultural bolshevism’ exists in a literal, definite sense in America, and can now be identified more specifically perhaps than Yockey was able to do in his own time. Trotskyite-bolshevism remained a significant tactic of American foreign policy during the Cold War for the purpose of subverting the Soviet bloc, as Yockey discerned. The Stalinists were correct in describing Trotskyism as a tool of ‘international capital’.
The specific organ for the propagation of ‘cultural bolshevism’ was the Congress for Cultural Freedom, founded primarily as a means of (1) destabilising the Soviet Union, and (2) co-opting non-Stalinist and anti-Stalinist Leftists, including communists, onto the American side of the Cold War. Such was the hatred of Trotskyites for the USSR without their idol that they readily sold themselves for anti-Russian purposes. The Congress for Cultural Freedom was founded in 1949 and emerged from Americans for Cultural Freedom formed during the 1930s by leading US Trotskyite Prof. Sidney Hook who described himself as a ‘life-long Menshevik’ even after he was awarded the Freedom Award from Ronald Reagan, and Fabian educationist John Dewey. Others involved were Sol Levitas, co-editor with Hook of The New Leader, Levitas also being a Menshevik who had worked with Trotsky and Bukharin; and The New Leader’s European correspondent Melvin Lasky, another veteran American Trotskyite who became a principal figure in the Congress and with the magazines Partisan Review and Encounter.
From these Trotskyite-CIA Cold War beginnings emerged what is today known as the so-called neo-conservatives, whose movement is neither ‘new’ nor ‘conservative’. 
Hence, as Yockey discerned, the policy of the Washington regime is that of Trotskyite Bolshevism. This applies just as much today as in Yockey’s time. While Russia re-emerges as a super-power confronting US global hegemony after the brief liberal-democratic-oligarchical regime of Yeltsin, the Washington regime continues to export ‘permanent world revolution’ with a policy that is thoroughly Trotskyite, albeit done under the guise of ‘conservatism’.
Within the higher echelons of American foreign policy, strategy is formulated in terms of this neo-Trotskyite ‘world revolution’ For e.g. Maj. Ralph Peters writes an article called “Constant Conflict”, a striking similarity to Trotsky’s “permanent revolution.” Peters advising the US Administration on future war tactics, sates that ‘culture and economic struggles will be steadier and ultimately more decisive… We have entered an age of constant conflict… We are creating a new American century’, in which American will become ‘still wealthier, culturally more lethal, and increasingly powerful.’ He describes democracy as the ‘liberal from of imperialism’ ‘Hollywood goes where Harvard never penetrated’. Traditional elites are shrinking, and being replaced by ‘figures such as Bill Gates, Steven Spielberg, Madonna… Contemporary American culture is the most powerful in history, and the most destructive of competitors’ cultures…. Our cultural empire has the addicted – men and women everywhere – clamouring for more. And they pay for their privilege of disillusionment… American culture is criticised for its impermanence, its ‘disposable’ products. But therein lies its strength.’ Thus, American culture, not being based on any traditional ideal, never reaches its end but is in a continual state of flux. ‘Our military power is culturally based…. American culture is infectious, a plague of pleasures… Hollywood is preparing the battlefield, and burgers precede bullets. The flag follows trade. What will be more threatening to traditional cultures?…’
Peters frankly discusses as a tactical strategy precisely what Yockey was terming from the late 1940s as the ‘ethical syphilis’ of Hollywood and ‘spiritual leprosy’ of New York.
Similarly, a leading neo-conservative ideologue and policy analyst, Michael Ledeen writes of America as ‘the one truly revolutionary country in the world, as we have been for more than 200 years. Creative destruction is our middle name.’ Ledeen states that the USA ‘led a global democratic revolution that toppled tyrants from Moscow to Johannesburg… We destroyed the Soviet Empire, and then walked away from our great triumph in the Third World War of the Twentieth Century.’
The Western Imperium predicted as the ultimate destiny of Western Civilisation, emerged not as Yockey envisaged, but as a Dollar Empire of the type and using the tactics described by Ledeen and Peters.
It is notable that Ledeen describes the Cold War as having been in reality the ‘Third World War of the Twentieth Century.’ Yockey wrote of an approaching Third World Wart between Russia and America. Yet it took a different form from what he was predicting in terms of a Hot War. On hindsight it would seem that the Yockeyans of the time underestimated the power of ‘culture distortion.’ One only needs to consider the global ramifications of George Soros for e.g. in creating a subversive network pushing everything from the ‘colour revolutions’ in the former Soviet bloc and elsewhere to feminism and marijuana liberalisation. Soros would today be considered by Yockey as perfectly epitomising the ‘culture distorter’.
Yockey however was correct in considering the enduring (what he termed ‘barbarian’ and ‘primitive’) religious and land-based soul of the Russian, as virile and ultimately having the potential to throw off this global spiritual and cultural contagion. Russia is yet to fulfil an historical mission that might liberate the Western Cultural organism and create a new ‘symbiosis of Russia and Europe;’ (and those ‘cultural colonies’ further afield) predicted by Yockey but on terms that would now recognise the Russian People-Culture-Nation-State as by no means inferior to that of the ‘West’.
Benson Ivor, This Worldwide Conspiracy, Victoria, Australia, The New Times Ltd., 1972.
Bolton K. R., Paraparaumu, New Zealand, Origins & Varieties of Fascism, Renaissance Press, 1997.
Bolton K. R., Varange: The Life & Thoughts of Francis Parker Yockey, Paraparaumu, New Zealand, 1998.
Bolton K. R., America, Russia and the New World Order, Origins of the Cold War & How Stalin Stymied a World State, Paraparaumu, New Zealand, Renaissance Press, 2002.
Bolton K. R., Israel Reconsidered: Should Conservatives Support Zionism?, Paraparaumu, New Zealand, Renaissance Press, 2002.
Bolton K. R., America’s Revolutionary Mission Against the West, Renaissance Press, Paraparaumu, New Zealand, 2004.
Bolton K. R., Trotskyism, Tool of Big Business, Paraparaumu, New Zealand, Spectrum Press, 2004.
Bolton K. R., Was Stalin Jewish? Paraparaumu Beach, New Zealand, Renaissance Press, 2008.
Chesterton A. K., The New Unhappy Lords, Hampshire, Candour Publishing, 1975.
Churchill Winston, Zionism versus Bolshevism: A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People, Illustrated Sunday Herald, February 8, 1920.
Clark R. W., The Life of Bertrand Russell, London, Jonathan Cape, 1975.
Coogan K., Dreamer of the Day, Francis Parker Yockey and the Postwar Fascist International, New York, Automedia, 1999.
McFadden Congressman Louis, Washington, The Congressional Record, House pages, 1934.
Fahey Father Dennis, The Rulers of Russia and the Russian Farmers, Tipperary, Maria Regina series, no. 7. Thurles: Co., 1948.
FBI Memorandum, 100-25647, Passport and Visa Matters, November 24, 1953.
Gannon A., Frontfighter #10, London, Feb.-March 1951.
Gromyko A., Memories, Hutchison, London, 1989.
Ledeen M., Creative Destruction, National Review, September 20, 2001.
Lendvai P., Anti-Semitism in Eastern Europe, London, MacDonald,1972.
Peters Maj. R., Constant Conflict, Parameters, US Army War College Quarterly, Summer 1997.
Pope Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum: Rights and Duties of Capital and Labour, 1891.
Pope Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno, 1930.
Quigley C., Tragedy & Hope: The History of the World In Our Time, New York, The MacMillan Co., 1962.
Russell B., Has Man a Future?, England, Penguin Books, 1961.
Saunders Frances Stonor, The Cultural Cold War, New York, The New York Press, 1999
Skousen W Cleon, The Naked Capitalist, Utah, privately published, 1971.
Spengler Oswald, The Hour of Decision, (1st publ. 1934), New York, Alfred A Knopf, 1962.
Spengler, Oswald, The Decline of the West (1st publ. 1918), London, George Allen & Unwin1971.
Yockey F. P., Tragedy of Youth, (Published in Yockey: Four Essays, New Jersey, Nordland Press, 1971), Social Justice, April 21, 1939.
Yockey F. P., Proclamation of London of the European Liberation Front, London, Westropa Press, 1949.
Yockey F. P, Prague Treason Trial, What is behind the hanging of eleven Jews in Prague?,(Published in Yockey: Four Essays, New Jersey, Nordland Press, 1971) 1952.
Yockey F. P., and H Keith Thompson, The World In Flames, An Estimate of the World Situation, (Published in Yockey: Four Essays, New Jersey, Nordland Press, 1971), 1961.
Yockey F. P., Imperium,(First published 1948), California, Noontide Press, 1969.
Yockey F. P., Yockey: Four Essays, New Jersey, Nordland Press, 1971.
Yockey F. P., and Revilo P. Oliver, The Enemy of Europe (Yockey), The Enemy of My Enemies Revilo P Oliver, West Virginia, Liberty Bell Publications, 1981.
 Coogan, 92, 1999.
 In particular the Papal encyclicals: Pope Leo XIII, 1891; Pope Pius XI, 1930.
 For e.g. The Irish Blue Shirts under Gen. O’Duffy, Father Coughlin’s’ National Union for Social Justice in the USA, and Dollfuss’ regime in Austria, among many others of the time, were directly inspired by Catholic Social Doctrine.
 In 1930 Coughlin launched his first attack on the ‘money changers’, reaching 40,000,000 listeners via the CBS network. Bolton, USA: Coughlin & Social Justice, 110-112, Renaissance Press, NZ, 1997.
 Coughlin started a weekly newspaper in 1936 with 900,000 subscribers. Bolton, 111, 1997.
 Coogan, 55, 1999.
 Ibid., 92.
 Yockey 1939.
 Even high level diplomatic and military intelligence agencies reported on the Jewish involvement in Bolshevism, and it was widely believed in influential circles in the Catholic Church. For e.g. prominent Catholic theologian Father Dennis Fahey’s The Rulers of Russia and the Russian Farmers.,1948.
 For biographical details see Coogan, op. cit.; Bolton, 1998.
 Spengler, 1971.German conservative revolutionary philosopher-historian. His seminal work is The Decline of the West in which he expounds a morphology of history on the basis of the organic, cyclic growth and decay of cultures.
 Yockey F. P., Imperium, Cultural Vitalism: (a) Culture Health; (b) Culture Pathology,245-416, 1969.
 Yockey, ch. Imperium, 612-619, 1969.
 For example one excellent author and journalist, Ivor Benson, who had served as information advisor to the Rhodesian Government under Ian Smith, held that the discord between Zionism and the USSR was little more than a family feud, a continuation of the family discord between Zionism and Bolshevism for the allegiance of Eastern Jews, referred to by Chaim Weizmann, et al. Benson, 92-99, 1972. Interestingly, the title of his book This Worldwide Conspiracy is paraphrased from Winston Churchill’s article Zionism versus Bolshevism, 1920. Also of note however is that Benson seems to have placed Imperium in the recommended reading list of his books, although he does not appear to have adopted Yockey’s outlook on Russia.
Another excellent writer, A K Chesterton held the view that ‘ever since 1917 the polarity of the United States and the Soviet Union has been fictional…’ Chesterton, 246, 1975. Chesterton’s view as a die-hard British imperialist is understandable given that British and all other European colonial interests were under attack and subversion from both the USA and USSR which aimed to fill the void.
 Spengler, 1971. Spengler in explaining the morphology of culture in organic terms, drew on the seasons to describe cycles of cultural birth (Spring), cultural flowering (Summer), cultural-civilisational maturity (Autumn), Civilisational decline and death (Winter). In the Late Civilisation cycle where money ethics ruled there would arise a Caesar type in reaction to restore as a finale to the Civilisation the prior sense of greatness. Spengler saw this coming ‘Caesarism as the ‘Destiny’ of the West. (See in particular the final pages of Spengler, op.cit., 1971 , 506-507). Although his relationship with the Hitlerites was not amiable, he saw in Italian Fascism the incipient Caesarism he predicted. See Spengler, The Hour of Decision, 230, 1962.
 Yockey, op. cit., The Twentieth Century Historical Outlook, 3-110, 1969.
Spengler., 402, 1962 , “There is no proletarian, not even a Communist, movement that has not operated in the interests of money…”
 Yockey, Russia, 579-580, 1969.
 Yockey’s Imperium explicates his morphological theories of culture distortion and culture parasitism, whereby elements alien to a culture act on that culture in a pathological sense.
 Yockey, 579-580, 1969.
 Ibid., 582.
 Ibid., 586.
 For Yockey’s ‘racial’ concepts see Imperium, Cultural Vitalism, (A) Cultural Health, 245-354. Yockey, in contradistinction to orthodox National Socialist racial ideology, considered biological racism a 19th Century materialistic idea, allied with Darwinism. Yockey’s ‘racial’ conception is a synthesis of the spiritual and cultural, shaped by landscape and historical circumstances. This is similar to that of Spengler, Decline, op.cit.
 Coogan, op.cit., 169-172. The ELF became scathing of Mosley, as a person, one article in the ELF Newsletter entitled ‘Fuhrer’ in Search of a Following!!! (Gannon A., Frontfighter #10, Feb.-March 1951).
 Frontfighter # 7 November 1950 refers on p. 3 to meetings at the market squares of the principal towns of the North and North Midlands of England since April. The writer, Thomas Davies, as director of propaganda, states that the meetings were highly successful, and with the onset of winter, indoor venues were being sought.
 Yockey, III. The Mission of the Liberation Front, 28, 1949.
 Ibid., 29.
 What the Front is fighting for, Point 5, Frontfighter, #23, April 1952.
 Yockey, 30, 1949.
 Yockey F P, Prague Treason Trial, originally published as What is behind the hanging of eleven Jews in Prague? According to ‘DTK’ in the foreword to Yockey: Four Essays, Yockey supporters in the USA circulated the MS as a mimeographed ‘press release’ dated December 20, 1952.
 Ibid., 1.
 Lendvai P.243-245, 1972.
 Ibid., 260-297.
 Yockey, 1, 1952.
 For background on the early relationship between the USSR and Israel and the pro-Soviet orientation of Zionist leaders, see Bolton, Israel Reconsidered, 2002.
 See footnote 14.
 Yockey, 1, 1952.
 Ibid. 1-2.
 Ibid., 2.
 See for e.g. the review of Quigley by W Cleon Skousen, 1971.
 Quigley C., 893., 1962.
 Quigley, ibid., 895.
 Gromyko 1989.
 Clark, 1975.
 Russell B., 1961.
 Ibid. The background to The Baruch Plan, including a copy of the Plan itself, and the US proposition for UN world government is examined in Bolton, America, Russia and the New World Order, 2002.
 Yockey, 1, 1952.
 Ibid., 2.
 Ibid., 3.
 Ibid., 5.
 Ibid., 6.
 Ibid., 6-7.
 Ibid., 7-8.
 Ibid., 8-9.
 Fadden Congressman Louis, 1934.
 Personal communication to Bolton from Jacob Jugashvili. Bolton, 2008.
 Francis T., Appendix I, A note on Yockey’s Career, The Enemy of Europe (Yockey), The Enemy of My Enemies Yockey, 1981.
 Ibid., 135.
 Yockey, Introductory Note, The Enemy of Europe, ibid., 1.
 Coogan, 399-400, 1999.
 Francis, op. cit., 135, 1981.
 Ibid. A few copies were sent to America, and an English edition was published in 1981 by Liberty Bell Publications.
 Yockey, Introductory Note, op.cit., 2.
 Yockey, op. cit., 83.
 Ibid., 84.
 FBI Memorandum, 1953.
 Ibid., 6.
 Ibid., 7.
 Ibid., 7-8.
 Yockey, Thomson, The World In Flames, An Estimate of the World Situation. According to the introduction to Yockey: Four Essays, which includes The World in Flames, ‘D T K’ writes that it was distributed in a small quantity in February 1961. It was in fact co-authored with H Keith Thompson who in particular wrote the passages praising the neutralist regimes of the Third World, according to a comment made by Thompson in a communication with this writer. I was in communication with Thompson up until several years prior to his death. One of the first comments he made to me was to lament the condition of the world situation with the demise of the USSR.
 Yockey/Thompson, 3, IV, 1961. The evidence for the worthlessness of the American military under the regime of culture-distortion when confronted with a tough spartan people was demonstrated not by conflict between Russia and the USA but in the proxy war between the two when American confronted Vietnam.
 Ibid, 6, VII, 1961.
 Saunders 1999. This provides a detailed examination of anti-Russian Leftist involvement with the USA including the CIA during the Cold War. For a general background on the Trotskyite connections with international finance and the USA. Bolton, 2004.
 Bolton, ibid., Trotskyism, Trot Origins of Neo-Cons, 13-17, 2004.
 Peters, 1997. Peters at the time was assigned to the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence.
 Ledeen, 2001. Ledeen is Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute, and has held numerous high level governmental and academic posts . The essays by Peters and Ledeen along with commentary and analyses have been reprinted in Bolton, America’s Revolutionary Mission Against the West, 2004.