SolarGeneral Proudly Presents...

The Enemy of Europe

...by Francis Parker Yockey

THE CONCERT OF BOLSHEVISM

Neither Russia nor America-Jewry belongs to the Western Civilisation, though America, considered abstractly in and of itself, as it was before the Revolution of 1933, is still a European colonial-people. Hence there is no Cultural casus belli in the coming Third World War between these two powers. They both belong to the Outer Revolt against the world-supremacy of the West, and the collective term for this revolt, which turns, destroying and negating, against the creative affirmation of the Western Destiny, is Bolshevism. Within the Concert of Bolshevism there are, of course, differences as well as similarities. Both must be evaluated.

With both world-powers, the reigning ideology comes from a bygone Western world-outlook. The American ideology of “freedom,” “equality,” and legalism stems from 18th century Europe, as does its underlying philosophy of materialism. The Russian ideology of Marxism comes from 19th century English Capitalism, of which Marxism is a supplement. In Russia, Marxism is treated as a religion, for the prime characteristic of the Russian soul is its religiosity. Whatever this soul takes seriously, be it even the absurd end-product of Western materialism— Pavlovian reflexology, scientific psychology,— it deals with in a religious way, that is, in a way transcending action. Nowhere in Russian life is there anything that in any way corresponds to the Marxist schema. The Russian soul is not yet politically mature, and Russia continues to use Marxism as a political export article, even though a market for it no longer exists, since the First World War buried the form-world of the 19th century for ever. America-Jewry, which is similarly maladapted to the New Age, exports to Europe the shop-worn ideology of Montesquieu, Constant, Mill, Bentham, and hopes that on this basis it can turn the Destiny of Europe back two centuries.

In America, on the other hand, Marxism is not a theory but a fact. In the realm of facts, Marxism means class-war. America is the classic land of finance-capitalism and trade unions, the two organised groups that systematically plunder the national economy. Not only Marx, but all 19th century theorisers were obsessed with economic doctrines— Malthus, Darwin, Mill, Spencer, Shaw. American life is essentially oriented to economics, and every aspect of Life is simply referred for its justification thereto.¹

Feminine-matriarchal life is routine; hence American life is routine and technicised. Books instruct the population “How To Win Friends,” how social life, family life, sexual life are to be conducted. Yet this uniformisation of life is not perceived as burdensome or ignominious— the American population is entirely passive and feels quite at home in this atmosphere of a nursery. The social instincts predominate over the individual instincts, and every American child is taught from his earliest days that the essence of leading a successful life consists in “getting along with people.” There is no other way to realise this ideal than to renounce one's individuality. That is the explanation for the difficulty of kindling any kind of political opposition in America. As soon as a policy secures a foothold and becomes popular, it is right and respectable. Radical or persistent criticism is impossible in America ; the term “individualist” is nearly an insult. The extirpation of strong individuality precludes the rise of a true elite, an aristocracy, a ruling-stratum, for these are always based upon strong individuality and the feeling of uniqueness. All feelings of superiority, of higher self-esteem, of uniqueness are educated out of the American while he is still in kindergarten. It is impressed on him that his existence, his problems are exactly like those of everybody else.

An elementary demand of Life, however, is that every group possess a stratified social articulation. America's “elite” for economic, technical, industrial, social purposes is the businessclass, those thirty-thousand technical-managerial brains that permit American life to function. For political purposes, the “elite” is the Jewish entity, which enjoys a monopoly of power in all matters but is especially conspicious in the direction of foreign affairs. The technical-managerial caste has no sense of carrying out a mission; it does not regard itself as superior in nature, but only as more proficient in intellectual-technical matters. This type of social-technical differentiation resembles that which exists among the social insects, for example, the bees and ants.

Russian life is fundamentally barbarian. The barbarian is to be distinguished not only from Culture-men, but from savages, primitives, fellaheen, and decadents as well. Barbarian is a word full of promise, for the barbarian is inwardly in motion. The Germanic tribes that occupied Imperial Rome were barbarians, and from this Germanic stock came, many centuries later, men who wrought the Western Culture. The barbarian is the pre-Cultural form of humanity, just as different from the fellah, the end-product of a Culture, as from the savage, the proto-human type that stands in no relation whatever to a High Culture. The barbarian is strong-willed yet irresolute. He can be readily converted to new doctrines— witness the Russian “conversion” to Marxism,— but the conversion must be superficial, for mere verbiage cannot abolish the difference between Culture-man and barbarian. The barbarian is rough and tough, not keen-witted, full of artifice, and certainly not legalistic and intellectualised. He is the opposite of decadent. He is ruthless and does not shrink back from destroying what others may prize highly.

America's ideology— 18th century materialistic egalitarianism and 19th century capitalism— and Russia's ideology— 19th century proletarian capitalism— are both permeated with the spirit of their respective populations, the American ideology with that of the amalgam of negro-Jewish-Asiatic-Indian-European elements, as modified by the peculiarities of the landscape, the Russian ideology with that of the nomadic tribes of Asia, which are imbued with the enormous impersonality of the Asiatic steppes.

The Culture-man outside the Culture-sphere stands in danger of losing his Cultural-orientation— what the British civil administration in India used to call “going negative.” During the expansion of the American population over the vast plains, the American colonial lost well-nigh every contact with Western tradition and Western happenings, and his Western culture was diluted. Only in one part of America was there a successful transplantation of Western culture, in the South, but it was destroyed, for all practical purposes, by the victory of the Yankees in the Secession War, 1861-1865. While the American lost his Western culture, step by step, he became primitive. Had he fought a Culturally-alien world, such as the Chinese or Hindu, he would have retained his Cultural-orientation in fullest measure, for conflict with the Alien strengthens the Proper. But he fought merely savages and, more often, the landscape itself, the hardships of Nature. In the inward contest between Culture and Landscape, Landscape was largely the victor. Because comfort is one of the main ideals of the American, his vital impetus finds expression primarily in the domain of technics. Unrestrained by tradition, by political or social considerations, he fell head over heels into absolute technical development, and— in technics— he made his the foremost among the Western Colonies. Thus, as a result of his century of stateless expansion, the American succumbed, on the one hand, to the primitivity of his vast and empty continent, while, as a result of the concentration made possible for him by the absence of power-struggles, on the other, he made himself in some respects superior to Europeans. This had as its consequence yet another peculiarity.

The simultaneous presence of primitivity and over-civilisation in the American shaped his relationship to Europe into an unhealthy one. With his strong technical aptitude, he came to regard Europe as inferior; with his primitivity, he failed to comprehend Europe's Cultural Imperative in the 20th century. Hence he offered no resistance when the Culture-distorting regime foisted on America the idea that it had to educate Europe.

This idea could be all the more inculcated since America is by nature feminine-matriarchal and attributes great value to formal education. In America the autodidact will find neither political, academic, professional, nor social recognition. This peculiarity of the American character has been aggravated by the Culture-distorting element, and American schools and universities have been made into scholastic factories that produce uniform biological units. They have eradicated human individuality, so far as that can be attained at all in the human species. All values imparted through this “education,” such as comfort, security, and social uniformity, may be found on the purely animal level in man. None appeal to the specifically human level, which is embodied at highest potential by the unique and individualised human being, with his loftier values.

While the American is a Culture-man, reprimitivised on the one side of his being, over-civilised on the other, since he is completely and entirely animated by the ideals of peace, comfort, and security, the Russian is a barbarian, and still wholly primitive. Centuries of Petrinism never touched the underground Russia. No matter that it figured as such for centuries, Russia never became a nation of the West. America is a genuine Western colony, though, to be sure, it must now be counted part of the Outer Revolt.

The orientation towards technics is common to both: America is technical by instinct; Russia has become so under compulsion from its leaders, who have only politico-military reasons for embracing technics. In the field of philosophy, America's sole contribution to the Western intellectual heritage was Pragmatism— the doctrine that Truth is “what works.” In other words, Truth is not a function of the Soul, but of Nature. Pragmatism is at once a primitive and over-civilised philosophy, primitive, because its position vis-à-vis Truth is devoid of higher culture; over-civilised, because it makes all Truth merely an attribute of Technics. Expressed in terms of the American psychology: “True is what procures me more security, more comfort.” In America, obsession with technics is the expression and content of life of the population. It is instinctive, and America naturally seeks to export it to whatever countries its armies and bomber-squadrons have conquered. In Russia, on the other hand, the technics-obsession merely serves political and military ends, and is imposed on the Russian population only through the apparatus of a political dictatorship. The Russian experiences things primarily in a religious way; hence the incredible spectacle of his worshipping a machine.

Russia exhibits the same education-obsession as America : In the words of Lunacharsky: “Education, distributed according to Marxist principles, can make even the most mediocre Oriental intelligent.” Once again, a common denominator with America. There, too, “intelligence” is regarded as something that can be acquired, and, moreover, as the only distinction between human beings. Both Russia and America hold that the External forms and conditions the mind. Both emphasise totally environment and experience, negate dogmatically Spirit and Soul. For both the collective man is the ideal and the prevalent type. In both there naturally exists the most extreme intolerance towards anything other than the mass-ideal.

In Russia, the craze for uniformity, including the education-mania, is likewise imposed from above to carry out a political programme. The emphasis on the power of environment, the adoration of reflexology, the idolisation of machines, of statistics and percentages, and of economic theories generally— all this is in Russia simply technique, and it is all essentially negative: the Russian peasant-barbarian soul is a religious ferment, and, as such, abhors economic theories, machines, science, and nationalism. The programme of Moscow-Bolshevism represents a means of quashing the hyper-individuality of a people of Pugachevs, Aksakovs, Kropotkins, Nechayevs, Dostoievskys, Rasputins, and Shoptsy. Primarily, Moscow-Bolshevism is a method for politicising the religious-barbarian Russia. That the Moscow regime uses Marxism as an export-article is simply political idiocy, and the possibility constantly exists that it will one day discard it because of its ineffectiveness.

For Europe the following distinction is important: American-Jewish Bolshevism is the instinctive destruction of the West through primitive, anti-Cultural ideas— peace, comfort, security, abolition of individuality,— through over-technicisation, through the imposition of Culture-distortion and Culture-retardation. Russian Bolshevism seeks to attain the destruction of the West in the spirit of pan-Slavic religiosity, i.e., the Russification of all humanity.

Thus American-Jewish Bolshevism poses a real spiritual threat to Europe. In its every aspect, American-Jewish Bolshevism strikes a weak spot in the European organism. Even in Europe there exists a stratum, the Michel-stratum, the inner-America, which is animated by the purely animal American ideal of peace, comfort, security, abolition of individuality. Even in Europe there is an element that would like to replace culture with machinery. Even on Europe Culture-retarding regimes can be imposed, if necessary with American bayonets. Even in Europe Culture-distortion is present: the dictature over Europe of the American-Jewish Symbiosis itself. And even in Europe, in the midst of the Age of Absolute Politics, the Cato-type exists: You can watch him babbling, misty-eyed, about democratic ideals while the Barbarian and the Distorter occupy the sacred soil of the West. The 20th century European Cato would rather see the West destroyed than have finally to toss the rubbish of democratic ideals on the scrap heap of history, where the corpse of Democracy lies stinking and putrescent after a half century of decay.

Russian Bolshevism is simply barbarism, and therefore finds no resonance anywhere in Europe. Even Europe's lowest spiritual stratum, the inner traitor, the Michel-stratum, has nothing whatever in common with the pan-Slavism of barbaric population-streams. Russian religiosity has been temporarily and, from a Cultural standpoint, falsely raised to political intensity as a reflex of the great Western spiritual development, the Resurgence of Authority, the genesis of the Imperium-Idea. Without the Western Culture, there would be no such structure as Russia, only marauding tribes of barbaric horsemen like the Cossacks in Taras Bulba.

Russian Bolshevism is therefore less dangerous to Europe than American-Jewish Bolshevism, for no aspect of its menace corresponds to a weakness in Europe's spiritual armour. Europe actually has an inner America, the Michel-stratum; however, Europe has no inner Russia. Obviously, the so-called Communist Parties are not at all the reliable tools wherewith a Russian occupation of Europe could be built. In fact, the work of these Communist Parties is already done. They were useful instruments of early Bolshevism's foreign policy, especially in the period 1933-1939. During the Second World War, they helped save Russia's existence as a political unit; after the War, they helped create the Russian power-accumulation, extending from Hanover to Hong-Kong, the largest contiguous power-accumulation in the history of the world. Yet, today, between the Second and Third World Wars, all Communist Parties, including the American, are politically insignificant.

The Communist Parties of the West are simply class-war units, not bearers of barbarism and Russian pan-Slav nationalism. In the 20th century, all are forced to think in terms of facts and not merely words, so far as Politics is concerned, and Russia's connexion with Western class-war rests simply on words. Russia claims to be the bearer of class-war in the West. Nevertheless, during the Second World War the Moscow regime forbade the American Communist Party to engage in class-warfare. Actually, the entire policy of using Marxism as a political export-article is now political stupidity, for Marxism has lost its former rabble-rousing value in the West. The highpoint of class-war in the West has passed.

In particular, it was the re-orientation of Russian world-policy after the Second World War, the turning against the Jewish entity of Church-State-Nation-People-Race, that sealed the doom of every Communist Party in the West, the one in America included.

The blow that the American-Jewish Symbiosis has dealt the European organism is well-known. The values of this Symbiosis are purely animal, anti-Spiritual, anti-Aristocratic, anti-Cultural, anti-Heroic, anti-Imperialist, and therefore appeal to the worst element in the European population and to the worst in every individual European. In each point of its attack, America-Jewry opposes the values of Capitalism to those of Imperialism, the heroic world-outlook of the Age of Absolute Politics. With the spiritual-ethical values of Capitalism, America-Jewry is planning to kill the Western organism. But since the Past can never destroy the Future, only attempt to thwart it, that means American bayonets imposing the anti-Cultural Interregnum on Europe, and therein lies the possibility that for Europe will follow many decades of degradation, chaos, darkness, stultification, misery, and wasting away.

The effect that a Russian occupation of Europe would have on the Western Culture is not yet equally well-known, and can be determined only by uncovering its organic basis.

The Russian is a barbarian; the European is a Culture-man in his late-Civilisation phase. Before this moment in History, barbarians have violently invaded Culture-areas. In the 16th century B.C., Northern barbarians invaded the Egyptian Culture-petrifact, to enact the chapter of history that is called the “Hyksos”-era. About 1700 B.C., the Kassites conquered and occupied the Babylonian Culture-area, and, around the same time, the Aryans in a barbaric wave from the North flooded into and conquered the Culture of the Indus. Chinese history in its first stirrings is the epic of a barbarian invasion by the Chou. Imperial Rome — even Republican Rome— was invaded more than once by the barbarian Germans and Gauls. In none of these historical instances did the invasion of the barbarians destroy the body of the Culture; in each case the result was finally the absorption of the barbarian elements into the 80

Culture-body or their expulsion. The barbarian comes to destroy and stays to learn. Spiritually, the barbarian is a tabula rasa. Labile and childlike, he is eager to apply the new doctrines, new life-forms, to which he has been converted. Hence the Romanov Petersburg of the 18th and 19th centuries displayed a higher degree of Western Politesse and social-form than any European capital before it.

The belief that a Russian-barbarian occupation of the whole of Europe would be similar to the Russian occupation of half of Germany after the Second World War is a completely false estimate of the possibilities. A Russian occupation of all Europe would involve an entirely different distribution of forces and a completely different psychological situation. In the first place, the Russian occupation after the Second World War originated as a gift from America. Cynically, Europe's border against Asia, which had been pushed back gradually over a millennium, was restored to its place of 900 years ago. Thus the history, honour, and traditions of thirty generations of Europeans were outraged. The atrocities committed during the first years of the Russian occupation were permitted, encouraged, and even imitated by America. Without American encouragement, Russia would not have been in the position to commit its atrocities. In the second place, Europe was not politically able to intervene to protect 30,000,000 Europeans, for every European country was governed by the churchill-regimes the Americans had appointed, and these puppet-governments greeted barbarian Russia as their “valiant ally” while their members exchanged decorations with those of the Moscow regime.

Russia's occupation of a small part of Europe and its domination over one tenth of the European population after the Second World War were made possible only by the Washington regime, which, in 1945, wanted Europe so divided that the Red Flag would wave over Berlin and Vienna. If the Washington regime, instead of giving Russia simply a small part of Europe, had abandoned to it all of Europe — and that is a possibility contained in the events to come,— the division of forces would be completely different. Instead of America-Jewry, the whole of Russia, Eastern Europe, and most of Western Europe— under churchill-regimes— ranged against part of Germany, then against 200,000,000 Russians, would be arrayed the total body of the West, 250,000,000 men who are superior to them in intelligence, technical skill, organizational talent, and will-to-power. If this happens, America will be expelled from Europe, once and for all. Europe will have but a single enemy. That would be a unifying factor such as did not exist from the First Crusade until Lepanto.

A Russian occupation would develop along one or the other of two lines. The first possibility is an endless series of European uprisings against Russia that could result only in the expulsion of the demoralised barbarians. The second possibility would result from Russia's introducing a clever regime and according Europe extensive autonomy and magnanimous treatment. Within a few decades, this Europe would naturally aim at infiltrating horizontally the whole Russian seat of origin, its technical, economic, social, and, finally, military and political life. Instead of the Russification of Europe, as Dostoievsky and Aksakov dreamt of it, would result the Europeanisation of Russia once again, and this time in far stronger degree. This would occur from pure historical necessity, since this is the Age of Absolute Politics and Europe is politically shrewd whereas barbarian Russia is formless and politically inept, fluctuating between senseless vehemence and inner doubt. Not even the most brilliant statesmen in Russia could use this barbarian material to subjugate Europe in this Imperialist stage of its Destiny. An attempt by Russia to integrate Europe into its power-accumulation peacefully would eventually result in the rise of a new Symbiosis: Europe-Russia. Its final form would be that of a European Imperium. An attempt by Russia to chastise and terrorise Europe without the help of America would result in Russia's expulsion from Europe for good, by a Europe whose own dormant barbarian instincts had been thus reawakened.

If Russia should occupy Europe and attempt to imitate the American policy of encouraging petty-statism, to divide and conquer, it would fail utterly. America has been successful in that policy only because of its access to the European Michel-stratum with its lickspittle churchills. The Michel yearns for American capitalism and liberalism, but trembles with abysmal cowardice before Russian barbarism. The Communist Parties would be of slight use to Russia in any attempt to set up puppet-governments on the model of America's Churchill-regimes. The leadership and membership of these Communist Parties is composed of inferior European types, not of pan-Slavs or religious Russian nationalists.

The barbarian, immature and unversed in the subtleties of the art of Politics, trusts only those who are of his own religion, and the true religion of the Russian is not Marxism, but Russia. The first victims of a Russian occupation of Europe would be the European Communists, who would be liquidated at the slightest suspicion of disloyalty. Their “Communism” stems from books, their pro-Russian sentiments from hatred and envy of their European surroundings, their utopian orthodoxy about Russia comes from a lack of realism and an exaggerated intellectualism. The Russian knout and the Russian revolver would soon teach them what they have not learnt from their books, would shatter their utopian ideals and give their hatred a new focus.

Russia's effect on petty-statism and petty-nationalism would in no way resemble America's successful perpetuation of these Culture-pathological phenomena. To carry out its policy in Europe, America needs petty-statism. Not only does it work in the spirit of the principle, divide et impera, it also cannot think outside the narrow framework of it. After the Second World War, the Washington regime, which held absolute power to force its will on enfeebled Europe, announced its policy of a “united Europe.” It then proceeded to Balkanise Europe politically and atomise it socially in unparalleled fashion. Numerous congresses of toothless and infantile old men from the 19th century passed even more numerous resolutions, but the result was continued disunity and chaos. The childish dotards had received permission from Washington to jabber about the “unification” of Europe as much as they liked, but they were not allowed to say a word about the Liberation of Europe. That is why all these congresses led to nothing. For the Unification of Europe and the Liberation of Europe are one and the same process: seen from within, it is Unification; from without, liberation.

The fact that Russia used the fiction of “independent” states in its post-War occupation of Eastern Europe offers no criterion for its policy in the event it should occupy Western Europe, the Europe that is synonymous with the Western Culture. In any case, simply the presence of the barbarian, let alone his policy, would dissolve the Inner Enemy of Europe, the Michel-stratum, and thus liberate all creative forces within Europe from the tyranny of the Past.

Without the Michel, without his leaders, namely the churchills, without American bayonets, the distribution of forces would be as follows: the European will-to-power and the European Destiny against the sheer military might of a barbarian horde. The dissolution of the Michel-stratum would automatically destroy petty-statism, for petty-statist ideals and theories are preserved only in Culture-retarding brains. The barbarian, whether he wished it or not, would complete the spiritual unification of Europe by removing the only innerEuropean obstacle to that unity. From the Spiritual to the Political is but one step.

The following would be the results of the two possible kinds of Russian policy, the far-sighted policy of striving to integrate Europe into an enormous Russian Empire, embracing the whole world, and the policy of attempting to rule Europe by terror and violence.

Should Russia aim at a lasting incorporation of Europe into its Empire, it could succeed only if it granted Europe significant concessions. The first of these would have to be administrative autonomy for Europe as a unit, for that is the desire of all Europeans— the Michel-stratum and its leaders, the senile churchills, of course, excepted.

Should Russia attempt to terrorise Europe, it would summon forth in the European People the will to counter-terror. Faced with the barbarian, all Europeans, even the simplest minded liberals, would learn the necessity of inner firmness, of a stern will, the virtues of Command and Obedience, for these alone could force the barbarian to accept demands, or else retreat to his tundras and steppes. All Europeans would realise that not parliamentary babble, class-war, capitalism, and elections, but only Authority, the Will-to-Power, and finally, the military spirit could ever drive out the barbarian. The expulsion of England's army of 40,000 men by a few hundred Irish guerrilla-fighters in the years 1916-1923 would be repeated on a larger scale. In a great, unrelenting War of Liberation, Europe would unite itself, and cast the barbarian back to the distant plains of Asia.

To conclude: Between the two powers in the Concert of Bolshevism that dominates this Second Interbellum-Period, there are numerous similarities, some profound, others superficial. Neither of :he two is an organism with a positive Mission; neither of the two exhibits the inner qualities that alone can found and preserve a world-system; neither of them has or can have an aristocracy; in short, neither of them is the seat of a High Culture. In both the element of Landscape predominates over the cultural component in every stratum of the human material; both make use of an antiquated Western ideology that is completely ineffectual in the world-situation of the Age of Absolute Politics; both have not the faintest inkling of the Imperium-Idea, the necessary fulfilment whereof is the total historical meaning of this Age; both believe it possible to attain a static world-order in which History would have ceased to exist, and this belief makes both dangerously relentless; both believe Europe can be destroyed as a politico-Cultural unit, and degraded to the level of China.

Thus, from the European standpoint, there is in a Cultural sense no choice between these two powers, for both represent fundamental opposites to European Cultural imperatives.

In their political relation to Europe, however, the two extra-European powers widely and fundamentally differ. Owing to the presence of a European inner America, the Washington regime is able to establish or maintain in every European country: Culture-distortion, petty-statism, finance-capitalism, democracy, economic distress, and chaos. Regardless of its intentions, Russia produces a spiritual aversion throughout Europe. If America, deliberately or otherwise, relinquished to Russia the whole of Europe, Russia's occupation would have to be based either on terror or large-scale concessions to procure collaboration. Both occupation policies would end in the domination of Russia by Europe, either through a peaceful inner conquest or a series of Liberation Wars that Europe would wage as a unit against Russia. Barbarian Russia can only awaken Europe's sterner instincts. The American-Jewish Symbiosis, composed of fellah-Jews and American colonials who are at once primitive and over-civilised, appeals to the lowest stratum of Europe and to the lowest stratum in every European, the stratum of animal instincts, laziness, cowardice, avarice, dishonour, and ethical individualism.

America can only divide Europe— no matter what its policy.

Russia can only unite Europe— no matter what its policy.

From their comparative relationships to Europe, it follows quite clearly that a Russian-barbarian domination of all Europe, if such a thing were brought about by American policy-and that is the only way such an event could occur-would be less injurious to the Destiny of Europe than a continuation of the American-Jewish domination, for the barbarian, by his very presence, would dissolve the Inner Enemy of Europe, the Michel-stratum, and unite Europe spiritually.

This brings us to the concrete question of political decisions for Europe. The political question would be: How is power to be enlarged? But since Europe has no power, the question is: How is power to be obtained? There are only two political units in the world; hence the question is simply: From which political unit can Europe wrest away power? Or in other words: Who is the Enemy?

1: Cf. IMPERIUM, p. 502 ff., p. 524 ff.

Previous Chapter | Index | Next Chapter

Brought to you exclusively by SolarGeneral.com