Join Bruno Cariou; French scholar and noted translator of Juluis Evola for a six-hour discussion with Loki Hulgaard; linked at the bottom. 

While it is generally considered that there is an unbridgeable ideological gap between fascism and the ideological USSR, not all fascists, if not all neo-Nazis, have adopted the classic anti-Soviet position. Some fascists argued that Stalin’s elimination of Trotsky was the first sign that the USSR was changing direction from what they saw as “Jewish Bolshevism” to a collectivist type of Russian imperialism that had adapted the symbols and rhetoric of communism to its own goals, which were national, not international. They pointed to Stalin’s dissolution of the Comintern, the purge of large numbers of Bolshevik veterans and the substitution of the call for “socialism in one country” for incitement to international proletarian revolution. Foreign communist parties became instruments of Soviet foreign policy and espionage rather than organs of fomenting revolution.

An eccentric and very active figure from the immediate post-war period until his death in 1960, Francis Parker Yockey, convinced that the United States was the main enemy of European culture, concluded that the USSR could be used by those who wished to see occupied Europe “free” (sic) from foreign influences. This view, unorthodox in “right-wing” circles, won the support of a surprisingly large number of hitherto anti-communist veterans, including neo-Nazis and neo-fascists such as Major General Otto Remer. These far-right German veterans, who had fought the USSR, saw no reason for Germany to slavishly align itself with the anti-Soviet position of the United States during the Cold War. This essay examines the development of a pro-Soviet conception in one of the most active and philosophical representatives of this faction, Yockey. This attitude is again attracting the interest of some far-right groups, including Western admirers of Russian academic Alexander Dugin.D

Russia is meaningful for our time. Russia’s actions are crucial for the future of civilization in the face of globalization trends favored by the United States and international financial capitalism. Russia experienced a brief interregnum of subordination to liberal democracy and oligarchy, first under Gorbachev and then under Yeltsin. Putin’s rise was something of a partial coup, at least against plutocracy and globalism.

The US-born philosopher Francis Parker Yockey and a specialist in Western Density was one of the first thinkers to assess Russia’s situation from the perspective of realpolitik, at a time when the American right was serving the interests of globalization and cosmopolitanism by aligning itself with the American establishment to beat the drums of war against the USSR with the advent of the Cold War.

In this essay, Yockey’s attitudes are examined in their relationship to Russia and placed in the context of the present and in that of the near future.

Yockey’s Formative Influences: “Communism is Jewish”

Yockey’s formative years were in Depression-era Chicago, where he moved in 1938 to continue his education.[1] At that time, many Americans turned to the new experiments in the USSR, Fascist Italy and National Socialist Germany to find answers to their predicament. The ideological war between Marxism and fascism resulted in a material war in Spain. In Europe and elsewhere, Catholics saw in the social doctrine of the Church a response to the materialist dogmas of Marxism and capitalism [2]. This often resulted in what could be generically called “fascism”, but which can be more accurately described as “corporatism” [3].

The most influential of these movements in the United States was the National Union for Social Justice, founded by the popular “radio priest,” Father Charles Coughlin, who had emerged from the obscurity of his parish in Royal Oak, Michigan, in 1926 to host a radio program in which he called on his millions of American listeners [4] to put an end to the representatives of financial capitalism and the Bolsheviks. His enterprise gave birth to a mass movement [5].

Yockey emerged from this milieu as an activist and political thinker. Born in 1917, we know that, as early as 1934, he had discovered Spengler’s The Decline of the West [6], which would exert a decisive influence on him throughout his life. Yockey was linked to Pelley’s Silver Shirt Legion, most notably, it seems, as a lecturer [7]. Yockey’s first political writing seems to have been The Tragedy of Youth, published in 1939 in Father Coughlin’s mass-circulation journal Social Justice [8].REPORT THIS AD

It was during this period of social unrest that many in the United States and around the world came to believe that the Bolshevik experience in Russia was a Jewish movement.[9] The slogan “Communism is Jewish” became an article of faith in many anti-communist movements, including those of Coughlin and Pelley, which emerged at the time.

As his links to the Pelley and Coughlin movements show, Yockey, from his teenage years, was drawn to the “right” and anti-Jewish circles. As is well known, he was seduced by fascism and National Socialism. Reformed during the Second World War, his stature as a brilliant lawyer allowed him to obtain a position in the Public Prosecutor’s Office at the War Crimes Tribunal and thus to infiltrate and make contact with the last representatives of National Socialism in post-war Germany [10].

In 1947, Yockey retired to the Irish coast, where he wrote his magnum opus Imperium, a Spengellian work[11] in which he called on Western civilization as a cultural organism[12] to fulfill its cyclical destiny by creating an empire.[13]

At that time, Yockey’s attitude toward Russia remained in the orthodox “anti-Semitic” mold to the extent that he continued to view Russia as Jewish-controlled. In this conspiracy scenario, the United States and the USSR were generally regarded as two Jewish-led countries colluding to dominate the world at the instigation of a small Jewish coterie pulling the strings. This attitude persisted among the “anti-Semites” until the collapse of the USSR [14]. However, even then, Yockey discerned an underlying dichotomy in Bolshevism, which he saw as a foreign product imported by cosmopolitan Jews and under which the substratum of the true Russia with its own soul and historical mission continued to exist.

The Struggle for the Russian Soul: Two Factions in Bolshevism

Yockey drew on Russian history to explain the dichotomy between Jewish Bolshevism and the Slavic soul, arguing that such a division dates back to a time before that of Peter the Great and corresponded to two ways of thinking; one sought to “westernize” Russia, imposing imported thoughts and forms on the Slavic masses, which were composed of men with “strong instincts” and rooted. It should be borne in mind here that, for Yockey, the “Western” forms and thoughts imposed on Russia are those that are specific to the last cycle of decadence or Winter of the West in the Spenglerian sense [15]; the morphology of Yockey’s story is fundamentally Spenglerian. According to him, revolutionary and secular Jews were the agents who imposed “Western” ideas and forms on Russia insofar as they represented the materialist forms and economic theories inherent in the last stage of Western civilization, the school of free trade and the Marxist school [16] being inverted reflections of each other [17].

Yockey called Moscow the “Third Rome”, the new Byzantium, disdainful of the West, then in full decadence. This view has a lot of importance for the present and the near future.

In Imperium, Yockey says of Russia:

“Russia, the true, the spiritual, is primitive and religious. It hates Western culture, civilization, nations, arts, forms of state, ideas, religions, cities, technology. This hatred is natural and organic, because this population is outside the Western organism and everything Western is therefore hostile to and deadly to the Russian soul.

“The real Russia is the one that petrineism tried to break. This is the Russia of Ilya Muromets, Minin, Ivan the Terrible, Pozharsky, Theophilus of Pskov, Avakkum, Boris Godunov, Arakcheyev, Dostoevsky, Skoptzy and Vasily Shuysky. This is the Russia of Moscow, “the third Rome”, the mystical heir of Rome and Byzantium. There cannot be a fourth,” wrote the monk Theophilus. This Russia identifies with humanity and despises the rotten West.”[18]

Yockey identifies this “westernization” specifically with the rationalist philosophy imported by the Jewish element of “cultural distortion”[19]:

“Russia being primitive, its spiritual center of gravity is found in instinct and so, even during the egalitarian-rationalist nineteenth century, Russia was a land of pogroms. The Russian felt totally alien to the Culture-State-Nation-Church-Race of the Jew and the Tsarist regime confined the Jews to an area of residence reserved for them.

“The Russia of the upper classes, the westernized layer, which played with Western materialist philosophy, spoke German and French, traveled to the spas of Europe and was interested in the politics of European cabinets, was the object of the fierce hatred of the pure Russians, the Nihilists, who embodied the implicit idea of the complete destruction of the West and the Russification of the world. Whether this great destructive idea was expressed in the religious form of the affirmation of the only truth of Eastern Orthodox Christianity or, later, in the political form of Slavophilism and Pan-Slavism, or in the present form of Marxism-Bolshevism, its internal imperative remains the destruction of all that is Western, which it feels suffocates the Russian soul. » [20]

As early as 1948-49, Yockey argued that “Bolshevism” could be put at the service of a pan-Slavic imperialism that was to manifest itself with the rise of Stalin, after the overthrow of the Jewish Bolshevik faction led by Trotsky. Yockey examined these questions in detail in 1952, on the occasion of the Prague Trials, to which we will return later. Yockey clearly describes the two factions at work within Bolshevism at that time, both of which aimed to destroy the West:

So there are two Russias: the Bolshevik regime and, underneath, the real Russia. Bolshevism, with its cult of Western technology and its stupid foreign theory of class struggle, does not express the soul of the real Russia. This erupted in the uprising of the Streltsy against Peter the Great and Pugachev against Catherine the Great. In his rebellion, Pugachev and his peasants massacred all officers, officials and nobles who fell into their hands. Everything that had anything to do with the West was burned or destroyed. Entire tribes joined the mass movement. It continued for three years, from 1772 to 1775, and the Moscow court itself was for a time in danger. During his indictment after his capture, Pugachev explained that it was God’s will that he punish Russia. This spirit is always there, since it is organic and cannot be destroyed; it must express itself. This is the spirit of Asian Bolshevism, which is currently harnessed to the Bolshevism of the Moscow regime, with its obsession with economics and technology [21] [emphasis added].

At the time he wrote Imperium, Yockey continued to view the Russians, from Hitler’s point of view, as destructive Mongol hordes ready to melt on the borders of the West. His strategy was for the West to exploit the division between Russian and Jewish factions within the Moscow regime.

“Russia is internally divided; The regime in place does not represent the true soul, Asian, religious, primitive; on the contrary, it is a technological caricature of petrineism and this relationship, by its nature, means that, one day, this regime may meet the same fate as the Romanovs. This split can be used against Russia, just as Russia tries to foment domestic revolutions among its political enemies. Such a tactic was successfully used by the West against the Romanov regime in 1917. By virtue of its physical situation on the border of the West, Russia will be and must always remain the enemy of the West, as long as these populations are organized into a political unity” [22].

Whatever Yockey’s attitude towards Russians as a “race” or, more precisely, according to his terminology, as a Culture-People-State-Nation [23] may have been, the Prague Trials led him to change his position towards Russia, to the extent that he came to regard the Russian occupation of Europe as a bulwark against the American occupation. in his eyes more destructive – physically, culturally and economically – than the former. He would thus become a supporter of the Soviet occupation of Europe at the height of the Cold War era, while defending the neutralist lines of many Third World leaders. Anti-Americanism rather than anti-Sovietism would become his main concern.

Europe: between Moscow and Washington

In 1949, Yockey, having failed to persuade Mosley to accept his ideas, or even the offer he had made him to recognize the paternity of Imperium [24], founded with some other ex-Mosleyites the European Front of Liberation. Despite its ideological and intellectual orientation, the Front held public meetings[25] and attempted to make Yockey’s ideology accessible to a wider audience than might be assumed. Yockey wrote the EFL’s manifesto, The Proclamation of London, a convincing synthesis of Imperium. In the latter text, Yockey says about Russia:

“Europe knows the identity of the enemy within and knows what it is responsible for. It knows that he is Europe’s worst enemy, because he pretends to be a European, but Europe has external enemies towards whom it must also adopt a definitive position.

“The external enemies are the Bolshevik regime in Moscow, the Jewish-American Bolshevik regime in Washington and the Culture-State-Nation-Race of the Jew, which has now created a new hotbed of intrigue in Tel Aviv, which is a second New York.”[26]

Thus, in 1949, Yockey considered that Europe was facing hostility from both superpowers, as Germany had been during the Second World War. The “two external enemies” saw

« … Europe, [as a] backward population waiting to be re-educated by the American world clown and the sadistic Jew; Europe, [as a] laboratory in which Moscow engaged in gigantic social experiments and New York and Tel Aviv engaged in genocidal experiments; Europe, [as a] black mass of show trials, retrograde persecutions, betrayal, terror, despair and suicide. » [27]

According to Yockey, Russia had brought Asians to “the sacred soil of Europe”; America, blacks; and the Jews ruled over the whole [28].

It was still the time when Germany was occupied by American forces in the West and Soviet forces in the East, but the alliance between the United States and the USSR would not last, which is fundamental to understanding Yockey’s new orientation towards Russia. Point 5 of the EFL’s 1949 programmatic declaration deals with the “Purification of the soul of Europe from the ethical syphilis of Hollywood and Marxist Bolshevism of Moscow”.

Europe’s only hope was to embody a spiritual Idea, distinct from the superficial and ephemeral materialism of the occupying powers:

“But these conditions are only external, material. The soul of Europe cannot be occupied, governed or dominated by outsiders to the culture. Only a materialist could think that the possession of the visible attributes of power guarantees the eternal durability of power” [29].

However, even in the post-war period, Russia, unlike the United States, seems to have been for Yockey a very secondary concern in relation to the “liberation” and “destiny” of Europe. While he saw Russia’s influence primarily as material existence, he saw the United States as a virus that was eating away at the very soul of Europe through pervasive cultural distortion.

In 1949, Yockey said:

“Thus, the Liberation Front now announces to Europe its two great tasks: (1) the complete expulsion of all that is foreign to the soul and soil of Europe, the cleansing of the European soul of the slags of materialism and rationalism of the nineteenth century with its cult of money, liberal democracy, social degeneration, parliamentarism, class struggle, feminism, vertical nationalism, financial capitalism, narrow statism, chauvinism, Moscow and Washington Bolshevism, the ethical syphilis of Hollywood and the spiritual leprosy of New York; (2) the construction of the Imperium of Europe and the actualization of the European will, of divine origin, of unlimited political imperialism. » [30]

In a commentary on point 5 of the ELF program, published anonymously in Frontfighter in 1952, it was stated that the “virus of Jewish Bolshevism” [is] more understandable and therefore less dangerous” than the “ethical syphilis of Hollywood” [31].

Russia could be defeated militarily by a united Europe, but Europe had to defeat America on much deeper levels, that is, on the spiritual and cultural levels. In 1949, Yockey also judged that the occupation of Europe by the two rival superpowers would sooner or later lead them to a confrontation to which Europeans should remain outsiders. He did not think that Russia could invade Europe and hold it militarily for very long and therefore considered the idea that Europe would only live safely under the American military umbrella to be chimerical. He also reminded Europeans that, while fighting Bolshevism in the last war, Washington was supplying weapons to the Russian army:

“The Liberation Front will not allow Europe to be distracted by the current situation in which the two crude Bolshevisms of Washington and Moscow are preparing a third world war. In these preparations, the cultural backwardness (Culture-Retarders), the internal enemies, the liberal-communist-democrats are again at their post: with one voice, the Churchills, the Spaaks, the Lies, the de Gaulles, croak that Washington will save Europe from Moscow or that Moscow will wrest Europe from Washington. There is no support for this propaganda” [32].

Yockey’s statements would influence many German war veterans and nationalists at the beginning of the Cold War.

The Prague Trials

In 1952, an event occurred in Czechoslovakia that made him completely change his tactics. He explained in his essay The Prague Treason Trial [33] that the importance of the trials lay in the fact that they marked the reaffirmation of Russian Bolshevism in relation to Jewish Bolshevism.

“On Friday, November 27, the world was shaken by an event that, while insignificant in itself, will have a gigantic impact on events to come. It will have these repercussions because it will necessarily provoke a political reorientation in the minds of the European elite.

“This event was the conclusion of the treason trials of the Prague Jews and their death sentence” [34].

The circumstances of the Prague trials are as follows: at the end of 1951, Rudolf Slánský, General Secretary of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, was arrested for “anti-state activities”. A year later, he and thirteen co-defendants were tried as “Trotskyist-Titoist-Zionist traitors.” It is interesting to note that the terms “Trotskyist” and “Zionist” were used together. They were accused of espionage and economic sabotage on behalf of Yugoslavia, Israel and the West. Eleven of the fourteen defendants were sentenced to death, the other three to life imprisonment. Slánský and the other eleven were hanged on 3 December 1952. Of the fourteen defendants, eleven were Jewish and were identified as such in the indictment. Many other Jews were accused of participating in the conspiracy, including Justice Frankfurter of the U.S. Supreme Court, described as a “Jewish nationalist,” and Yugoslav Mosha Pijade, as a “Titoist Jewish ideologue.” The plot 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 Israelis Ben-Gurion and Moshe Sharett. In the indictment, Slánský was described as “by his very nature a Zionist” who, in exchange for US support for Israel, had agreed to place “Zionists in important sectors of the government, economy and Party apparatus.” The plan called for the assassination of President Gottwald by a “Freemason” doctor.[35]

In such a context, it is easy to understand that Yockey could have seen the trials through the prism of the USSR and Zionism, just as it is difficult to understand that the “anti-Semites” could persist in considering these events as part of a ploy devised by Zionists and communists. Similarly, it is interesting to note that, in 1968, the Zionists were again accused of being the brains of the uprising that had just taken place against the Czechoslovak state [36].

Yockey asserts that, in the immediate post-war period, the two allies, the United States and the USSR, acted in concert and that their relations with Israel as early as 1948 were a perfect illustration of their collusion:

“During the years 1945 and 1946, the coalition between Jews, Washington and Moscow functioned perfectly and frictionlessly. When the “state” of Israel was created as a result of armed aggression by the Jews, the entire world, dominated by Moscow and Washington, sang hymns of praise. Washington de facto recognized the new “state” within hours of its proclamation. Moscow has surpassed Washington in pro-Judaism by granting Israel de jure recognition. Washington and Moscow compete in ingenuity to please the operetta state of Israel and help it by all moral and material means. Russian diplomats boasted that they finally had a hot-water port in Haifa” [37].

I believe that those who see Moscow’s pro-Israel attitude in the early years of Israel’s founding as an indication that the USSR was in the grip of a Jewish regime are mistaken. Stalin, as soon as he had eliminated Trotsky and the Russian Trotskyists, ensured that the USSR distanced itself from the objectives of the American regime and ended up opposing them. Yockey at least suggests that Moscow’s support for Israel was pragmatic, as it allowed the Soviets to gain a foothold in the region through Israel; And one could even add that the German-Soviet pact was dictated just as much by pragmatism [38]. As we shall see later, Yockey realized that Stalin had obstructed the world government proposed by the Washington regime in the aftermath of World War II.

As Yockey notes, the alliance between the USSR and Israel did not last long. Many conspiracy historians have considered the breaking of this alliance a subterfuge to draw the Arabs into the Soviet orbit as part of a plot between the United States, the USSR, Israel and Jewry to dominate the world. According to this conspiracy theory, the world was divided into two power blocs led respectively by the United States and the USSR and the Cold War was a strategy to scare all other countries into joining one or the other of these two blocs, which would eventually merge into a world government. This view, which is based on a superficial interpretation of facts such as US transfers of technology and money to the USSR, the possible motives of which go beyond the scope of this article, is untenable. Historically, the salient fact is that such a world government could have been easily achieved directly after World War II through the United Nations, had the USSR not opposed it.

“And now, a few years later, Israel is recalling its ‘ambassadors’ stationed in Russia’s vassal states and intensifying its anti-Russian policy from its American citadel. The fickle Jews of Israel and America cried out that Stalin was following in Hitler’s footsteps. The entire American press is seething with fury in the face of anti-Semitism in Russia. Anti-Semitism, the New York Times warns, is the one thing America will not tolerate in the world.


“Why this upheaval?” [40]

Few “right-wingers” seem to realize that it was Stalin who rejected the idea of continuing the wartime alliance with the United States and helping to create a world government, which the oligarchs hoped to create in the aftermath of that war, just as they had hoped to create it through the League of Nations in the aftermath of World War I. Yockey writes that the first major break in U.S.-Soviet relations, which we might consider the beginning of the Cold War,

« … began in early 1947 with Russia’s refusal to cede part of its sovereignty to the so-called ‘United Nations’ as part of the ‘control’ of the atomic weapons industry. Jewish statesmen, whose metaphysics is materialistic, firmly believe in the ‘absolute’ military power of atomic weapons and have considered that the success of their policy therefore depends on their total control of these weapons. They already possessed this control in America through the Atomic Energy Commission, specially created and constituted to be beyond the reach of Congress and accountable only to the President, who is, according to the practical rules of American domestic politics, a person appointed by the Culture-State-Nation-People-Race of the Jew. They sought equal control of nuclear weapons in Russia and used the ‘United Nations’ apparatus to submit an ultimatum to the Russian leadership on this issue. [41]

“It was at the end of 1946, when the cult of the atom was in full swing and the minds of almost all the poor statesmen who now direct the political affairs of the world were fantastically dominated by a simple explosive bomb… Thus, the Jewish-American ultimatum of late 1946 was rejected, and in early 1947 preparations for World War III began. »

“This Russian refusal thwarted the plans of the Jewish leadership, which were to transfer Russian and American sovereignty to the ‘United Nations,’ an instrument of Jewish Culture-State-Nation-People-Race. It could hardly be expected that America, docile and politically unconscious as it was, would give up its sovereignty when the only other world power unconditionally refused to cede its own, so that all this policy had to be scrapped.”[42]

While right-wing conspiracy theorists quote the eminent American historian Dr. Carroll Quigley, they ignore what he wrote about the post-war USSR [43]. Quigley does, however, have much to teach us about relations between the United States and the USSR at the time. The question of the internationalization of atomic energy, raised by Yockey, is presented by Quigley, a supporter of a world government, as “the most important example of the Soviets’ refusal to cooperate and their insistence on falling back into isolation… » [44].


The project of internationalization of atomic energy had been called “Baruch Plan”, named after Bernard Baruch, Zionist plutocrat and eternal advisor to American presidents, who headed a citizens’ committee jointly with a Committee of the State Department [45].

In his memoirs, Gromyko, a member of the UN Atomic Energy Commission at the time, said of Plan Baruch:

“The real intention had 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 head of this body, to keep in its hands everything related to the production and storage of fissile material and, under the guise of international inspection, to interfere in the affairs of sovereign nations” [46].

Bertrand Russell, the famous pacifist who thought that the best way to establish world peace was to bomb the USSR before it became too powerful,[47] remarked on the Baruch Plan:

“The U.S. government… tried… to follow up on some of the ideas that atomic scientists had suggested. In 1946, he presented to the world what is now known as the ‘Baruch Plan’. Unfortunately, some aspects of the Baruch plan were deemed unacceptable by Russia, as was to be expected. It was Stalin’s Russia, proud of its victory over the Germans, suspicious, not without reason, of the Western powers and aware that, in the United Nations, it could almost always be put in the minority” [48].

Gromyko also tells how the USSR torpedoed the UN-led project for world government. His testimony refutes another of the main conspiracy theories of the right, according to which the UN was created jointly by the United States and the USSR or, at least, that it was part of a “communist conspiracy”. The United States wanted power in the United Nations to be vested in the General Assembly and decisions to be taken by majority vote. Such a parliamentary system would have allowed the United States to bribe Member States to obtain the required number of votes, whatever the issue. In contrast, the USSR insisted that the Security Council have the final say and that every member of the Council have veto power, which effectively meant that the UN could not function as the United States had intended. Gromyko writes on this subject: “The American position has in fact made it possible to transform the UN into an instrument for imposing the will of one group on another, above all the Soviet Union, the only socialist member of the Council” [49].

This situation led to the Cold War. Yockey continues: “The Jewish leaders then tried to persuade Stalin’s regime, through the encirclement and threat of the ‘Cold War,’ that it was futile to resist… » [50].

Because of its rejection of the ultimatum on atomic weapons, Russia was now facing opposition to its policies everywhere, in Austria, Germany, Korea, Finland. The same American publicists who had become so adept at explaining Russia’s need for “security” as it successively seized several countries, suddenly turned the charge of ‘aggressor’ against it… »[51].

The Prague trials thus took on another meaning, which Yockey explains in these terms:

“The Bohemian trials are neither the beginning nor the end of a historical process, they are simply an undeniable turning point. From now on, all of them must necessarily reorient their policies in the light of the indisputable evolution of the world situation. The ostrich policy is suicide. The discourse on ‘defence against Bolshevism’ now belongs to the past, as does the absurd expression ‘defence of Europe’, at a time when every inch of European soil is dominated by Europe’s mortal enemies, those who seek at all costs its political-cultural-historical extinction” [52].

As Yockey insightfully discerned, the symbolic gesture that had been made to the internationalist power structure in Prague changed the world situation not only for the United States, but also for “those who believe in the fate of Europe.” That is why, whether they are thinkers or militants, they must now see the USSR not as a threat to Europe, but as an ally in the liberation of Europe.

“This same barbarous despotism called the Russian Empire and presided over by the fat peasant Stalin — Jugashvili, who rules by his cunning over a khanate greater than all those founded by the mighty Gengis, is today the only obstacle to the domination of the whole earth by the instrument called ‘united nations’. This vast Russian empire was created by the Jewish-American hatred of Europe-Germany. During World War II, in order to prevent Stalin and his pan-Slavic nationalist-religious entourage from making peace with Europe-Germany, Jewish-American leaders delivered Russia unprecedented amounts of military equipment and lavished promises, gifts, and political benefits like never before. » [53]

Yockey convincingly explains the importance of the Prague trials:

“It is now possible to indicate the developments which were made inevitable by the sharp break marked by the Prague trials.

“First and foremost and most important for those of us who believe in the Liberation of Europe and the Imperium of Europe: it is the beginning of the end of American hegemony over Europe… [54]

“It is obvious that events that were extraordinary enough to force Stalin to reorient his entire world policy and become openly anti-Jewish will have the same effect on the European elite.”[55]

“No more than Russia America can reverse the Prague trials. There is no turning back. They constitute Russia’s declaration of war against American Jewish leaders, whether or not the Russian press continues to wrap its denunciation of ‘anti-Semitism’ in vague explanations. In politics, what matters most is not what you say, but what you do. The fact is that the Russian leadership is killing Jews for treason against Russia, for collaboration with the Jewish entity. This cannot be denied or changed. The European elite will be forced to see this fact and will govern accordingly. Russia has publicly designated before the world its powerful enemy and has thus put an end to any controversy over the question of who is the real beneficiary power of American hegemony in Europe [56].

“From now on, the European elite will be able to impose itself more and more in business and it will force American Jewish leaders to return, step by step, the guard of European destiny to Europe, to its best forces, to its natural leaders. If the American Jewish leaders refuse, the new leaders of Europe will threaten them with the Russian bogeyman. By playing Russia against American Jewish leaders in this way, Europe can achieve its liberation, perhaps even before World War III. [57]

“For us in Europe, trials are welcome; they clarify things. The opponents have now defined themselves…

It was already stupid to ask Europe to fight for America, it was already foolish to ask it to ‘defend itself against Bolshevism’… Is there a single European – only one – who would respond to this call to war? But today this is obviously, without her being able to hide it, the raison d’être of the coalition against Russia, because Russia has designated its main enemy, its only enemy, and the boorish and devious pan-Slavic leaders of the Kremlin are not inclined to frivolity in foreign policy.

“We repeat our message to Europe: no European should ever fight, except for sovereign Europe; no European should ever fight an enemy of Europe in the name of another enemy” [58].

The enemy of Europe

Yockey’s strategy now consisted of presenting the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe as a bulwark against the US military occupation of Western Europe, especially against the enslavement of Europe’s heartland, Germany. Yockey’s message that Europe should maintain a neutralist position during the Cold War and repudiate anti-Soviet rhetoric disguised as anti-communism and even patriotism resonated with anti-Bolshevik veterans of the last war. As Yockey stated in The Prague Treason Trial, those veterans who had waged a bloody war against the USSR during World War II were not prepared to fight the Russians on America’s orders in order to keep Europe under American hegemony. He was right.

Yockey’s main contacts in Europe were Major General Otto Remer and members of his Socialist Party of the German Reich (SRP), founded in 1949.[59] Yockey’s main American collaborator was H. Keith Thomson, who had re-entered the U.S. State Department as the U.S. representative of the Reich Socialist Party [60].

By 1948, Yockey had written a number of chapters that were to find a place in Imperium. He did not include them “for personal reasons” [61]. However, in 1953, the manuscript was published in German and Germany under the title Der Feind Europas [62]. His intention was apparently to publish Der Feind for the instruction of the leaders of the SRP [63], who had adopted a neutralist position vis-à-vis Russia. However, copies of the book were seized and destroyed by the German authorities [64].

The Enemy of Europe is a concise reaffirmation of Imperium’s main ideas. However, Yockey revised the final chapters to align them with his views on the developments that had taken place in the Soviet bloc at the time of the Prague trials [65]. While Yockey maintained his rather Hitlerian bias toward the Russians, whom he saw as devoid of any sense of mission or high destiny, as culturally “external barbarians,” he politically advocated a reorientation of European liberators toward a pragmatic attitude toward the USSR.

Yockey repeated that the Russian occupation of Europe would be less harmful than the American occupation. He believed that superior Western culture would resist US military occupation and that Russians would eventually succumb to a symbiotic relationship, which would allow the standard-bearers of European culture to infiltrate the Soviet bloc at all levels, including the Kremlin itself. Russia’s occupation of Europe would not lead to Russification, but to the Europeanization of Russia and a peaceful “new Europe-Russia symbiosis” [66].

For Yockey, the Russian occupation was also preferable to the American one because it would lead to the elimination of the “internal traitor”, that class of politicians embodied by Churchill who, while part of the Western cultural heritage, acted against European interests on the orders of the Washington regime. Without the “internal traitor”, the narrow statism that divided Europe would give way to European integration under the auspices of Russia [67].

As part of this realignment, Yockey recommended clandestine resistance to the American occupation and, simultaneously, a pro-Soviet campaign. It naturally ends up attracting the attention of various intelligence and police services.

Yockey seems to have adopted a pro-Russian orientation from the beginning of his activities in Europe. A 1953 FBI report on him [68] indicates that, according to informants, as early as 1949, at the inaugural EFL meeting held privately in Baroness von Pflugl’s London apartment,

“Yockey immediately launched an attack on the Union Movement, which he described as an instrument of American policy. In German, which he spoke fluently, he began to praise German policy in Germany, referring in particular to the so-called army of Seydlitz and Paulus. Yockey asked for help in organizing a secret group of partisans in West Germany who would be willing to collaborate with the Soviet military authorities to carry out actions against the Western occupying powers.”[69]

The report then states that Yockey spoke of Germany’s eastward orientation. He also spoke of his goal of creating a widely circulated newspaper that would specialize in anti-American campaigns.[70]

One of Yockey’s main British collaborators, Guy Chesham, a former member of Mosley’s Union Movement, defined a policy of infiltration of nationalist organizations aimed at directing them towards a “violently anti-American” policy and diverting them “from any anti-Bolshevik conception“. Chesham proposed to form a force in England that would “act directly against American military bases” as well as an anti-American popular front, which could obtain funds from the Soviet embassy.[71]

Yockey’s last book, The World in Flames [72], published in 1961, the year of his death, reaffirmed his position with regard to the attitude of Russia and America towards Europe. Yockey predicted World War III and observed that “the Russians are combative, because of the barbaric nature of their soldiers“; American soldiers “are absolutely worthless” [73]. For him, Russian policy was “stupid” in comparison with American or specifically “Zionist” policy, which he considered “malicious” [74].

The Russia of today and tomorrow

As much as Yockey got the details wrong, his perception of what Spengler called “the outline of the story” was correct. Yockey’s main theories on realpolitik are therefore important today and in the near future as a method of historical and political analysis.

Yockey saw that the USSR had changed direction since Trotsky’s ouster. He correctly identified two “Bolshevisms” in the sense in which he understood the term, namely an attack on the Western cultural organism: the “Bolshevism” of Moscow and the “Bolshevism” of Washington and New York. He saw the militarist “Bolshevism” of the “Russian barbarians” as less dangerous in the long run for the Western cultural organism than America’s “cultural Bolshevism.”

This “cultural Bolshevism” exists in the literal sense of the word in the United States and can be identified today in a more specific way than in Yockey’s time. As he has seen, Trotskyism-Bolshevism remained an important tactic of American foreign policy during the Cold War with the aim of subverting the Soviet bloc. The Stalinists were right to describe Trotskyism as a tool of “international capital.”

The specific organ for the propagation of “cultural Bolshevism” in the United States was the Congress for Cultural Freedom, founded primarily to (1) destabilize the Soviet Union and (2) rally non-Stalinist and anti-Stalinist leftists, including communists, to American Cold War policy. The hatred that the Trotskyists conceived for the USSR after the second exile of their idol was such that they were ready to sell themselves to any anti-Russian party. Founded in 1949, the Congress for Cultural Freedom grew out of the Americans for Cultural Freedom, created in the 30s by Professor Sidney Hook, a leading American Trotskyist who continued to describe himself as a “Menshevik of always” even after being awarded the Freedom Award by Ronald Reagan, and the Fabian pedagogue John Dewey. Other prominent members of the movement included Menshevik Sol Levitas, co-editor with Hook of The New Leader and a former collaborator of Trotsky and Bukharin; and the European correspondent of The New Leader, Melvin Lasky, another veteran American Trotskyist, who became a leading figure in Congress and in the magazines Partisan Review and Encounter [75].

It was from these Trotskyist circles linked to the CIA that what is now called the neo-conservatives were born during the Cold War, whose movement is neither “new” nor “conservative”[76].

Thus, as Yockey understood, the policy of the Washington regime is that of Trotskyist Bolshevism. This is as true today as it was in Yockey’s time. While Russia, once again a superpower, is once again confronted with the global hegemony of the United States after Yeltsin’s brief liberal-democratic-oligarchic parenthesis, the Washington regime continues to export the “permanent world revolution” through a totally Trotskyist policy, even if it is conducted under the guise of “conservatism”.

In the upper echelons of American foreign policy, this strategy finds expression in a neo-Trotskyist “world revolution.” For example, Major Ralph Peters wrote an article called “Constant Conflict,” which bears a striking resemblance to Trotsky’s “permanent revolution.” Peters, an adviser to the US administration on future war tactics, declares that “cultural and economic struggles will be more sustained and will eventually be more decisive… We have entered an era of permanent conflict… We are creating a new American century, in which Americans will become even richer, culturally more dangerous, and more powerful.” He describes democracy as the “liberal version of imperialism,” “Hollywood is going where Harvard never penetrated.” The traditional elites are shrinking and are 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 competing cultures… The snags in our cultural empire – men and women, all over the world – are asking for more. And they pay for the privilege of being disillusioned… American culture is criticized 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 perpetual evolution. Our military might has a cultural foundation…. American culture is contagious, an epidemic of pleasures… Hollywood prepares the battlefield and burgers precede the bullets. The flag follows the trade. What could be more threatening to traditional cultures [77]? »

Peters frankly presents as a tactical strategy precisely what Yockey called in the late 1940s the “ethical syphilis” of Hollywood and the “spiritual leprosy” of New York.

Similarly, a leading neoconservative ideologue and political analyst, Michael Ledeen, writes that America is “the only truly revolutionary country in the world, we have been for more than 200 years. Creative destruction is our middle name.” Ledeen claims that the United States “led a global democratic revolution that overthrew tyrants from Moscow to Johannesburg… We destroyed the Soviet empire, and then we renounced our great triumph in the third world war of the twentieth century” [78].

The Western Imperium, which Yockey predicted would be the ultimate destiny of Western civilization, did not emerge as Yockey envisioned, but by the tactics described by Ledeen and Peters and is the dollar empire.

It is remarkable that, in Ledeen’s eyes, the Cold War was actually the “third world war of the twentieth century“. Yockey wrote about the approach of a third world war between Russia and America. Yet this war took a form that was not the actual war he had predicted. In retrospect, it seems that Yockeyians of the time underestimated the power of “cultural distortion.” Just consider George Soros’ global network and all the subversive ventures he has led, from “color revolutions” in the former Soviet bloc and elsewhere to feminism and marijuana liberalization. Soros would today be considered by Yockey as the perfect embodiment of the “culture deformer“.

Yockey, however, was right to regard the tenacious (which he described as “barbaric” and “primitive”) religious and peasant soul of the Russian as virile and ultimately capable of repelling this global spiritual and cultural contagion. Russia has yet to fulfill a historic mission that could liberate the Western cultural organism and create that new “symbiosis between Russia and Europe” (and those more distant “cultural colonies“) that Yockey predicted, provided that the “West” recognizes that the Russian People-Culture-Nation-State is in no way inferior to it.

Kerry R. Bolton, “Francis Parker Yockey: Stalin’s Fascist Advicate”, International Journal of Russian Studies, vol. 3/2, July 2010, pp. 9-35, translated from English by B. K. (*)


Ivor Benson, This Worldwide Conspiracy (Victoria: The New Times Ltd., 1972).
K. R. Bolton, Origins & Varieties of Fascism, Renaissance Press, 1997.
K. R., Bolton, Varange: The Life & Thoughts of Francis Parker Yockey, Paraparaumu, 1998.
K. R. Bolton, America, Russia and the New World Order, Origins of the Cold War & How Stalin Stymied a World State, Paraparaumu, Renaissance Press, 2002.
K. R. Bolton, Israel Reconsidered: Should Conservatives Support Zionism?, Paraparaumu, Renaissance Press, 2002.
K. R. Bolton, America’s Revolutionary Mission Against the West, Renaissance Press, Paraparaumu, 2004.
K. R., Bolton, Trotskyism, Tool of Big Business, Paraparaumu, Spectrum Press, 2004.
K. R., Bolton, Was Stalin Jewish? Paraparaumu Beach, Renaissance Press, 2008.
A. K. Chesterton, The New Unhappy Lords (Hampshire: Candour Publishing, 1975).
Winston Churchill, Zionism versus Bolshevism: A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People, Illustrated Sunday Herald, February 8, 1920.
R. W. Clark, The Life of Bertrand Russell (London: Jonathan Cape, 1975).
K. Coogan, Dreamer of the Day, Francis Parker Yockey and the Postwar Fascist International (New York: Automedia, 1999).
Louis McFadden, Washington, The Congressional Record, House pages, 1934.
Dennis Fahey (Father), The Rulers of Russia and the Russian Farmers, Tipperary, Maria Regina series, n°. 7. Thurles: Co., 1948.
FBI Memorandum, 100-25647, Passport and Visa Matters, November 24, 1953.
A. Gannon, Frontfighter #10, London, February-March 1951.
A. Gromyko., Memories, Hutchison, London, 1989.
M. Ledeen, Creative Destruction, National Review, September 20, 2001.
P. Lendvai, Anti-Semitism in Eastern Europe, London: MacDonald, 1972.
R. Peters, Constant Conflict, Parameters, US Army War College Quarterly, Summer 1997.
Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum: Rights and Duties of Capital and Labour, 1891.
Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno, 1930.
C. Quigley, Tragedy & Hope: The History of the World In Our Time (New York: The MacMillan Co., 1962).
B. Russell, Has Man a Future?, Penguin Books, 1961.
Frances Stonor Saunders, The Cultural Cold War (New York: The New York Press, 1999
W. Cleon Skousen, The Naked Capitalist, Utah, self-published, 1971).
Oswald Spengler, The Hour of Decision (1934), New York, Alfred A Knopf, 1962.
Oswald Spengler, The Decline of the West (1918), London, George Allen & Unwin1971.
F. P. Yockey, Tragedy of Youth, (in Yockey: Four Essays, New Jersey, Nordland Press, 1971), Social Justice, April 21, 1939.
F. P. Yockey, Proclamation of London of the European Liberation Front (London: Westropa Press, 1949).
F. P. Yockey, Prague Treason Trial, What is behind the hanging of eleven Jews in Prague?,(in Yockey: Four Essays, New Jersey, Nordland Press, 1971) 1952.
F. P. Yockey and H Keith Thompson, The World In Flames, An Estimate of the World Situation, (in Yockey: Four Essays, New Jersey: Nordland Press, 1971), 1961.
F. P. Yockey, Imperium, (1948), Noontide Press, 1969.
F. P. Yockey., Yockey: Four Essays (New Jersey: Nordland Press, 1971).
F. P. Yockey and Revilo P. Oliver, The Enemy of Europe (Yockey), The Enemy of My Enemies Revilo P Oliver, West Virginia, Liberty Bell Publications, 1981.


[1] Coogan, 1999, p. 92.
[2] In particular the papal encyclicals: Leo XIII, 1891; Pius XI, 1930.
[3] For example, General O’Duffy’s Irish Blue Shirts, Father Coughlin’s National Union for Social Justice in the United States, and the Dollfuss regime in Austria, among many others at the time, were directly inspired by Catholic social teaching.
[4] In 1930, Coughlin made his first attack on representatives of “financial capitalism” on the CBS show he hosted by 40 million people. Bolton, USA: Coughlin & Social Justice, Renaissance Press, 1997, pp. 110-2.
[5] Coughlin launched a weekly in 1936; He had 900,000 subscribers. Bolton, 1997, p. 111.
[6] Coogan, 1999, p. 55.
[7] Ibid., p. 92.
[8] Yockey, 1939.
[9] Even high-level diplomatic and military intelligence agencies reported Jewish involvement in Bolshevism, an involvement in which most influential circles of the Catholic Church believed. For example, the eminent Catholic theologian, Father Dennis Fahey, The Rulers of Russia and the Russian Farmers, 1948.
[10] See, for biographical information, Coogan, op. cit. Cit. and Bolton, 1998.
[11] Spengler, 1971. The masterpiece of this conservative-revolutionary German philosopher-historian is The Decline of the West, in which he exposes a morphology of history based on the idea of organic and cyclical growth and decadence of cultures.
[12] Yockey, Imperium, Cultural Vitalism: (a) Culture Health; (b) Culture Pathology, 1969, pp. 245-416.
[13] Yockey, Imperium, 1969, pp. 612-9.
[14] For example, an excellent author and journalist, Ivor Benson, a former information adviser to the Rhodesian government under Ian Smith, argued that the discord between Zionism and the USSR was little more than a family quarrel, a continuation of the family discord, to which Chaim Weizmann et al. refer. Benson, 1972, pp. 92-9, between Zionism and Bolshevism, who competed for the allegiance of Eastern Jews. Interestingly, the title of his book, This Worldwide Conspiracy, is a paraphrase of Winston Churchill’s article Zionism versus Bolshevism, 1920. It’s also worth noting that Benson seems to have placed Imperium in the list of recommended reading he included in his books, though he doesn’t seem to have taken Yockey’s view of Russia. Another excellent writer, A K Chesterton (1975, p. 246), was of the opinion that “since 1917, the polarity between the United States and the Soviet Union has been fictitious… ». The view of Chesterton, a staunch British imperialist, is understandable, given that British and European colonial interests were under attack and undermined by both the United States and the USSR, which sought to fill the vacuum.
[15] Spengler, 1971. Spengler drew on the seasons to describe the cycles of cultural birth (spring), cultural flowering (summer), cultural and civilizational maturity (fall), civilizational decline, and death (winter). In the last cycle of a civilization, where the ethics of money dominate, a Caesarean figure appears in reaction to restore the previous sense of greatness. SpenglHe saw this future “Caesarism” as the “destiny” of the West (see in particular the last pages of Spengler, op. cit., 1971, pp. 506-7). While his relations with the Hitlerites were far from friendly, he saw in Italian fascism the nascent Caesarism he had predicted (see Spengler, The Hour of Decision [1962], p. 230).
[16] Yockey, op. cit. Cit. The Twentieth Century Historical Outlook, 1969, pp. 3-110.
[17] Spengler, 1962, p. 492. « There is not a proletarian movement, or even a communist one, which, without the idealists among its leaders being aware of it in any way, acts in the interest of money, in the direction desired by money and for the duration fixed by money. »
[18] Yockey, Russia, 1969, pp. 579-80.
[19] In Imperium, Yockey expounds his morphological theories of cultural distortion and parasitism, according to which elements alien to a culture have a pathological effect on that culture.
[20] Yockey, 1969, pp. 579-80.
[21] Ibid., p. 582.
[22] Ibid., p. 586.
[23] For Yockey’s “racial” concepts, see Imperium, Cultural Vitalism, (A) Cultural Health, 245-354. Yockey, unlike the ideologues of National Socialist racism [see, for a refutation of this received idea, as well as the expanded version of this study in Julius Evola, Synthesis of the Doctrine of Race, Cariou Publishing, 2021, Appendix 1: On National-Socialist Racism, pp. 243-70,) considered biological racism to be a nineteenth-century materialist idea, allied with the darwinism. Yockey’s “racial” conception is a synthesis of the spiritual and the cultural, shaped by landscape and historical circumstances. It is similar to that of Spengler, Decline, op. cit. Cit.
[24] Coogan, op. cit. cit., pp. 169-72. The ELF made scathing attacks on Mosley himself in an article in the ELF newsletter entitled “‘Fuhrer’ in Search of a Following!!! (Gannon A., Frontfighter #10, February-March 1951).
[25] The November 7, 1950 issue of Frontfighter refers (p. 3) to meetings in the marketplaces of the major cities of the North of England and the North Midlands since April. The editor, Thomas Davies, as director of propaganda, states that the meetings were very successful and that, with the arrival of winter, they were held indoors.
[26] Yockey, III. The Mission of the Liberation Front, 1949, p. 28.
[27] Ibid. [28] Ibid. [29] Ibid. [30] Ibid., p. 29.

[31] What the Front is fighting for, point 5, Frontfighter, No. 23, April 1952.
[32] Yockey, 1949, p. 30. Yockey adds: “The fact is that only American intervention in World War II prevented Europe from completely destroying Bolshevik Russia as a political unit. The current Russian Empire is therefore a creation of America. Never in the 500 years of Russian history has Russia been able to make its way to Europe without help. It invaded Prussia against the great Frederick only with the help of France, Austria and Sweden. It did not invade the France in 1814 and 1815 untilc aid from England, Austria and Prussia. It invaded Europe in 1945 only with the help of America. Russia is a threat only to a divided Europe; a united Europe can destroy Russia’s power at the moment it decides. It is a gross lie to say that Europe cannot defend itself against Russia. Do we believe that Europe can forget the knowledge it has just bought with the blood of millions of its sons? Do we believe that Europe can forget that the Jewish-American regime and it alone brought the Red armies to the heart of Europe? Do we think that Europe can forget that the internal enemy, with its liberal-communist democracy, has led Europe into this abyss? Europe remembers and knows that liberal democracy is the creature of the abyss, the spirit of denial that seeks an ever deeper abyss. This creature destroyed a world empire and now it is asking for Europe’s trust to lead a new crusade.” N.D.T]. [There seems to be an “intruder” in this list. Paul-Henri Spaak (1899 – 1972) was a Belgian politician who is considered one of the Founding Fathers of Europe, but, unless we are mistaken, no politician at the time was named Lie. So Yockey personified the lie. Of de Gaulle he left us this striking portrait of truth: “De Gaulle is not a great man, but if he is able to obtain the independence of the France, he will immediately find himself the spiritual leader of all Europe, small as he is. De Gaulle is a moron, but people will even follow a moron, if he embodies their deepest, most natural and most instinctive feelings. De Gaulle’s driving force is immeasurable vanity. Even Churchill, the embodiment of the idea of Vanity itself, was content to be a leading Zionist cadre and a large office. But De Gaulle wants more: he wants to be equal to the masters who created it and inflated it like a balloon. Thanks to the spiritual force on which he accidentally landed – the universal European desire for neutrality – he can even succeed. An idiot could save Europe. History has seen such strange things,” The Tragedy of Youth, Social Justice, August 21, 1939; reprinted in Four Essays, Union, NJ, Atlantis Archives, 1972, 1-2. [
33] Yockey, Prague Treason Trial, originally published as What is behind the hanging of eleven Jews in Prague? According to “DTK” in the preface to Yockey: Four Essays, Yockey’s supporters in the United States circulated the manuscript in the form of a roneotyped “press release,” dated December 20, 1952. N.D.T.]
[34] Ibid., p. 1.
[35] Lendvai, 1972, pp. 243-5.
[36] Ibid., pp. 260-97.
[37] Yockey, 1952, p. 1.
[38] See, on the context of early relations between the USSR and Israel and the pro-Soviet orientation of Zionist leaders, Bolton, Israel Reconsidered, 2002.
[39] See supra note 14.
[40] Yockey, 1952, p. 1.
[41] Ibid., pp. 1-2.
[42] Ibid., p. 2.
[43] See, for example, W. Cleon Skousen’s review of Quigley’s book, 1971.
[44] Quigley, 1962, p. 893.
[45] Ibid., p. 895.
[46] Gromyko, 1989.
[47] Clark, 1975.
[48] Russell B., 1961.
[49] Ibid. See, on the context in which the Baruch Plan was drawn up and the US proposal for a world government under the auspices of the UN, Bolton, America, Russia and the New World Order, 2002.
[50] Yockey, 1952, p. 1.
[51] Ibid., p. 2.
[52] Ibid., p. 3.
[53] Ibid., p. 5.
[54] Ibid., p. 6.
[55] Ibid. One of the common claims of the “anti-Semites” of the 30s was that Stalin was Jewish and that he worked for the domination of the Jews as much as his fallen rival Trotsky, albeit by different methods. For example, Congressman McFadden told Congress in 1934 that Stalin was a Georgian Jew. According to the most common interpretation, Stalin’s name, Djougachvili, means “son of a Jew,” because, in Georgian, “Dzu” or “Ju” means “Jew.” Stalin’s great-grandson, Jacob Djougachvili, wrote to me in 2008 about the name: “‘Jews’ is called ‘Ebraeli’ in Georgian, so the theory that this name means ‘son of a Jew’ is simply false.” [see, note 3]
[56] Ibid., pp. 6-7.
[57] Ibid. pp. 7-8.
[58] Ibid., pp. 8-9.
[59] T. Francis, Appendix I, A note on Yockey’s Career, The Enemy of Europe (Yockey), The Enemy of My Enemies Yockey, 1981.
[60] Ibid., p. 135.
[61] Yockey, Introductory Note, The Enemy of Europe, ibid., p. 1.
[62] Coogan 1999, pp. 399-400.
[63] T. Francis, op. cit. cit., p. 135.
[64] Ibid. A few copies were shipped to the United States and an English edition was published in 1981 by Liberty Bell Publications.
[65] Yockey, Introductory Note, op. cit. cit., p. 2.
[66] Yockey, op. cit. cit., p. 83.
[67] Ibid., p. 84.
[68] FBI Memorandum, 1953.
[69] Ibid., p. 6.
[70] Ibid., p. 7.
[71] Ibid., pp. 7-8.
[72] Yockey, Thomson, The World In Flames, An Estimate of the World Situation. According to the introduction to Yockey: Four Essays, in which The World in Flames was published, a few rare copies were distributed in February 1961. H. Keith Thompson, with whom Yockey wrote it, told us himself that he wrote the passages that praised the neutralist regimes of the Third World. I was in communication with Thompson in the years leading up to his death. In one of the first letters he sent me, he lamented the state of the world since the disappearance of the USSR.
[73] Yockey, Thompson, 3, IV, 1961.La proof of the nullity of the U.S. military, when, under the regime of cultural distortion, it is confronted with a spartan and tough people, was made by the proxy war that the two countries fought against each other in Vietnam.
[74] Ibid, VII, 1961, p. 6.
[75] Saunders, 1999. This article examines the anti-Russian left’s ties to the United States, including the CIA, during the Cold War. See, on Trotskyist connections with international finance and the United States. Bolton, 2004.
[76] Bolton, ibid, Trotskyism, Origins of Neo-Cons, 2004, pp. 13-7. [Four arguments are formulated in support of the thesis of the Trotskyist origin of US neoconservatism: “TheThe genesis or ‘roots’ of neoconservatism lie in the American Trotskyist movement and, more precisely, that the first generation of neoconservatives was composed of former Trotskyists. In this version, special attention is paid to Irving Kristol, who is pilloried as the fifth column of Trotskyist influence within conservatism. The second is that members of the second generation of neoconservatives, that is, the current generation, were once followers of the heretical Trotskyist Max Shachtman. Through them, neoconservatism would have retained some of the great principles, albeit in a modified form, of ‘Shachtmanism’. Third, neoconservatism would have retained the ‘methods’ and ‘characteristics’ of Trotskyism, especially those of the early neoconservatives, and would thus be a form of ‘reversed’ Trotskyism. The last argument, perhaps the best known, is that the neoconservatives adhere to Leon Trotsky’s theory of permanent revolution and that they have put this theory into practice through their role in the Bush administration” (William F. King, Neconservatives and ‘Trotskyism’, American Communist History, vol. 3, n° 2, 2004, p. 250, which intends to refute the thesis according to which US neo-conservatism has its roots in Trotskyism and recalls in the preamble that This accusation was levelled against the “neo-cons” by US paleo-conservatives in the early 1990s. Here is his conclusion: “Only four of the first neoconservatives were Trotskyists. The small minority of neoconservatives involved in the movement went through it briefly and marginally in their late teens. No substantial influence of this period remains, except opposition to Marxism and Trotskyism and indeed to socialism in all its forms.
2. None of the second-generation neoconservatives have ever been ‘Shachtmanites’. A small number of today’s neoconservatives were leaders, along with Max Shachtman, of the right wing of the Socialist Party in the late 60s. However, none of the future neoconservatives ever adhered to the quasi-Trotskyism that characterized historical ‘Shachtmanism’ before 1958.
3. The claim that neoconservatism is an ‘inverted Trotskyism’ is based on an excessively abstract methodology. By focusing on elements of Trotskyism that are not central or definitive, it empties the term of its meaning. Such an approach is ultimately false and misleading, as it implies that there is a connection between Neoconservatism and Trotskyism that cannot be demonstrated by historical evidence.
4. The accusation that the neoconservatives adhere to and implement Trotsky’s theory of permanent revolution is based either on misreading or on outright ignorance of Trotsky’s theory. In attempting to establish a link between permanent revolution and the neoconservative theory of democratic globalism, the accusation distorts both theories.
Whichever version of the claim one focuses on, it is clear that there is no substantial connection between neoconservatism and American Trotskyism” (pp. 265-6); [see, for a contrary argument, Kerry R. Bolton, America’s ‘World Revolution’:o-Trotskyist Foundations of U.S. Foreign Policy, May 3, 2010, N.D.T.]
[77] Peters, 1997. Peters was assigned to the Office of the Deputy Chief of the Intelligence Staff at the time.
[78] Ledeen, 2001. Ledeen is a Research Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and has held numerous high-level government and academic positions. Peters and Ledeen’s essays and commentaries and analyses have been reprinted in Bolton, America’s Revolutionary Mission Against the West, 2004.

(*) Kerry Bolton is a New Zealand author and political activist. He was a member of the New Zealand Democratic Nationalist Party from 1976 to 1991, belonged to the New Zealand National Front (NZNF) in the 1980s (“Nazis, Zap And Trim Out”, The New Zealand Herald. 20 June 1983. p. 2) and the Temple of Set, founded in 1990, following disagreements with other members, The Order of the New Zealand National Front (NZNFLeft Hand Path (OLHP) (Gavin Baddeley, Paul Woods [ed.] Lucifer Rising: A Book of Sin, Devil Worship and Rock ‘n’ Roll. Plexus Publishing, 2000, p. 221), a study group based on the ideas of Nietzsche, Jung and Spengler and renamed two years later Ordo Sinistra Vivendi (Jeffrey Kaplan and Leonard Weinberg, The emergence of a Euro-American radical right. New Jersey, Rutgers University Press. 1998, p. 143), before founding in 1994 the Black Order, which, according to Goodrick-Clarker (Black Sun: Aryan Cults, Esoteric Nazism, and the Politics of Identity. New York: New York University Press, 2003, p. 227), “claimed to constitute a worldwide network of national lodges in Britain, France, Italy, Finland, Sweden, Germany, the United States and Australia, dedicated to the promotion of National Socialism, fascism, Satanism, paganism and other aspects of the European Darkside”; its quarterly newsletter, The Flaming Sword, which was succeeded by the fanzine The Nexus, published interviews with, among others, James Mason, Charles Manson, George Eric Hawthorne, Varg Vikernes, Austrian musician Kadmon, David Myatt and Miguel Serrano, articles on Thulianism, Wewelsburg, studies on Julius Evola, Savitri Devi and Ezra Pound, tributes to former SS leaders and “a reprint of the Order of the Nine Angels’ Mass of Heresy [ and] David Myatt’s contributions on the galactic empire, Aeonic strategy, and cosmological magic of National Socialism” (Goodrick-Clarke, op. cit., pp. 227-8). According to Goodrick-Clarke (op. cit., p. 227), “[t]he Black Order is conceived not merely as a study group or publishing house, but as a militant front to mobilize music and political groups in order to accomplish the ‘Wyrd of our Civilization and post-Western Aeon.'” “In keeping with Bolton’s growing interest in Francis Parker Yockey as a ‘third way’ theorist, [The Nexus] recognized in the communist revolutionaries Mao-Tse-tung and Che Guevara their allies against globalist capitalism of ‘American plutocratic world hegemony’. In his quest for allies of left and right in his struggle against the “New World Order,” Bolton thus marks his affinity with the new “National Socialist” or red-brown alliances of post-communist Russia and groups such as Bouchet’s New Resistance and Troy Southgate’s National Revolutionary Faction in England. Bolton also celebrates Stalin as a strong nationalist leader […] [he] claims that Stalin destroyed the old Bolshevik revolutionary elites by calling them ‘Zionists’ and ‘agents of international capitalism’. In his quest for rebels to the “new world order,” Bolton praises developing nations such as India and Malaysia for rejecting free trade policies in exchange for loans from the International Monetary Fund. Western intervention in Kosovo is condemned as the attempt by the ‘new world order’ to subjugate a sovereign nation that seeks to maintain its ethnic homogeneity against globalization and multiracialism” (ibid., p. 230). In 1996, shortly apr_s publishing Dietrich Eckart: Hitler’s Occult Mentor (Renaissance Press, 1995) and Lovecraft’s Fascism: The Political Views of H. P. Lovecraft (Renaissance Press, 1995), Bolton founded The Thelemic Society, an attempt to merge the teachings of occultist Aleister Crowley with the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche in a right-wing political line. “It is now vital for the Thelemites to declare our holy war against the remains of Ancient Aeon; to pave the way for the New Aeon, the One of Force and Fire, of the Crowned Child and Conqueror,” the group’s manifesto states (ibid., p. 228). Bolton published Aleister Crowley and the Conservative Revolution (1996) and The Warrior Mage (1996) at the same time. In 1997, he co-founded the New Zealand Fascist Union (Mattias Gardell, Gods of the Blood: The Pagan Revival and White Separatism, Durham and London: Duke University Press, 2003, p. 294). In 2004, he was Secretary of the New Zealand National Front (Tony Wall, “A picture of white supremacy”, Sunday Star – Times, Wellington, New Zealand, 9 May 2004, p. A.11) and spokesperson for New Right (“Hate posters in New Zealand”. Papua – New Guinea Post – Courier. Port Moresby. 15 December 2005. p. 9). Since 2021, he has regularly participated in online activities and meetings of Action Zealandia (NZ’s largest neo-Nazi group, on the hunt for new recruits). NZ Herald, August 8, 2021). In recent years, it has been published in various journals (The Foreign Policy Journal, International Journal of Social Economics, Geopolilika, India Quarterly, Irish Journal of Gothic and Horror Studies, etc.) and on their websites. He is co-editor, with the Greek historian Dimitris Michalopoulos, of the journal Ab Aeterno, founded in 2010 and whose collaborators include Tomoslav Sunic and Alexander Dugin. In addition to those mentioned above, his main books are, by category: Origins & Varieties of Fascism: A Pictorial History (Renaissance Press, 1997), Thinkers of the Right: Fascism, Nationalism & Elitism Amongst the Literati (Luton Publications, 2002), Portraits & Principles of World Fascism (Renaissance Press, 2003), Nazism?: An Answer to the Smear-Mongers (Renaissance Press, 2005), Revolution from Above (Arktos Media, 2011); Perón and Perónism (Black House Publishing, 2014), Zionism, Islam and the West (Black House Publishing, 2015); Rudolf Steiner & the Mystique of Blood & Soil (Renaissance Press, 1999), Otto Strasser’s “New Europe” (Renaissance Press, 2011), Stalin: The Enduring Legacy (Black House Publishing, 2012), Yockey: A Fascist Odyssey (Arktos Media, 2018); Religion, Mysticism and the Myth of the “Occult Reich” (Inconvenient History, 2015), The Occult and Subversive Movements: Tradition & Counter-Tradition in the Struggle for World Power (Black House Publishing, 2017); The Holocaust Myth: A Sceptical Enquiry (Spectrum, 2000); The Kosher Connection: Drugs, Israel, Gangsters & Zionism (Renaissance Press, 2002), Mel Gibson & the Pharisees (Renaissance Press, 2003), The Banking Swindle (Black House Publishing, 2013), Opposing the Money Lenders: The Struggle to Abolish Interest Slavery (Black House Publishing, 2016) ; Geopolitics of the Indo-Pacific (Black House Publishing, 2013) , The Psychotic Left: From Jacobin France to the Occupy Movement (Black House Publishing, 2013) ; The Decline and Fall of Civilisations (Black House Publishing, 2017); The Perversion of Normality: From the Marquis de Sade to Cyborgs (Arktos Media Ltd, 2021); Yockey and Russia: Francis Parker Yockey: The USSR’s American Rightist Advocate (Renaissance Press, 2009; Francis Parker Yockey and Russia, Ars Magna, 2010), whose present article – which will soon be followed by a translation of Bolton’s introduction to his next edition of The Ennemy of Europe – is a first version and Russia and the Fight Against Globalisation (Black House Publishing, 2018).

Sourced From Yockey and Russia| Elements of racial education (

Loki Hulgaard interviews Bruno Cariou: