Yockey reads like Spengler thrown into a random word generator

Schmeisser Saturday 25 Feb 2017

If you are an American, Yockey makes fascism relevant for you. Otherwise I think American Nazis and far-right seem like very silly people who are not grounded in reality. Yockey deserves to be taken seriously. He was trying to put Fascism back into action immediately after WWII. He wasn't simply a writer and is probably best not thought of as a philosopher. He was writing propaganda and traveling across Europe trying to establish contacts and forming political groups (European Liberation Front). His writing style can be easily lampooned, but it was precise and often profound. More than that, his books are enjoyable and easy to read. They didn't catch on, and the West is totally fucked, but Yockey is wholly admirable in my book.

squf said: ↑

What I can find of Yockey's thoughts on Russia (from La Wik and WN sites such as OccidentalDissent) is that Yockey saw Russia as the last great hope for the European spirit... a view I am also utterly sympathetic to, as even today I prefer Putin to any Western leaders. This doesn't exactly fit well with this statement that Yockey viewed Russians as cultureless savages and so on. Going further still I would state that I am more sympathetic to the Strassers than I am to Uncle Adolf, and that I believe a Red-Brown alliance is better than ~pure nazism~ or ~pure fascism~ in terms of something which might actually be viable. There are plenty of incredibly passionate and fanatical people on the Left they just need to start being a little more racist, a little more grounded in realpolitik. If we wanted to use gay Leftist terms we might even be able to come up with some jargon about how the 20th century was dialectical to a massive scale, and that something like National Bolshevism represents the workable next step, the synthesis, of the 20th century's frenzy.

This is the biggest misconception of Yockey, that he was a Russophilic NazBol. In his writings, Yockey actually had little nice to say about Russians who he typically referred to as "barbarians." Yockey even abruptly ends Imperium with a call for war against the Soviet Union, in 1948 urging the necessity to launch another Barbarossa to secure the Ukrainian breadbasket and Caucasus oilfields for Europe.

Yockey's views hardly change at all in The Enemy of Europe. He still considered the Russian to be an imbecilic brute (which I fully agree with). Yockey didn't want any meaningful alliance with the Soviet Union. He merely considered that the US was a more dangerous enemy to European culture. He considered that in the event that Europe could ally with the Soviet Union, the Russians would have nothing culturally to offer to Europeans and would have no influence on European culture. He thought it would be great if the Soviet Union invaded all of Europe because he felt that the Europeans would never accept Russian domination and would rise again with a great war of liberation. Nowhere did he ever say "Russians are good people, and we should ally with them."

And since you mentioned the Strassers, I'll note that they weren't actually pro-RussianCommunist either. In his books, Otto Strasser was extremely critical of Russia and considered Stalin to be evil. Otto Strasser frequently referred to the Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact as evidence that the Hitler regime was evil. Hitler was so evil that he would briefly ally with Stalin! That was Otto Strasser's view, and he never bothered to alter his views after Hitler invaded Russia that this meant either party was less evil.

perkunos Saturday 25 Feb 2017

I am going to end this argument by copy-pastaing passages from Yockey at random as I did in SB last night. He seriously reads like a computer used a random number generator to paste machine translated Spengler phrases together:

Russia’s total alienness is realized all through Europe, horizontally and vertically. Under a Russian occupation of Europe, even the very European Communists would soon be in the great, never-ending revolt against the Barbarian. The European Michel element, with its weak urge toward parliamentary babbling and money-loving, and its detestation of the firm, strong, Prussian-European will-power, would find itself cleansed of its spiritual sickness under the lash of the Mongolian. It would become European. Nor could a Russian occupation hope forever to hold Europe down. First, the European will and intelligence are stronger than the will and intelligence of the Barbarian. Secondly, the Barbarian has not sufficient human resources to enslave the Western Civilization at this stage of its development, when its Inner Imperative is cast in the form of will-to-power, and the urge to unlimited authoritarian Imperialism.
America, on the other hand, is not generally understood in Europe. Even in the Culture-bearing stratum of the West there is no clarity that America under Culture-distorting leadership is Europe’s total enemy. Only the development of historical thinking has enabled Europe to understand the organic nature of Culture, and of Culture-Pathology.

The Law of Constancy of IntraOrganismic Power

In the matter of elections which had a vogue of almost two centuries during the life of the Western Civilization, both in Europe and in its spiritually dominated areas elsewhere, an important law of political organisms is shown.
In “democratic” conditions — the origin and historical significance of “democracy” are shown elsewhere — occur the inner-political phenomena known as “elections.” It was the theory of “democracy” arising about 1750 that the “absolute” power of the monarch, or the aristocracy, depending on local conditions, must be broken, and this power transferred to “the people.” This use of the word “people” shows again the necessarily polemical nature of all words used politically. “People” was merely a negative; it merely wished to deny that the dynasty, or else the aristocracy, belonged to “the people.” It was thus an attempt to deny the monarch or aristocracy political existence; in other words, this word implicitly defined them as the enemy, in the true political sense. It was the first time in Western history that an intellectualized theory became the focus of political happening. Wherever the monarch or aristocracy were stupid or incapable, wherever they looked backward instead of adapting themselves to the new century, they went down. Wherever they took over the theories themselves and interpreted them officially, they retained their power and their command.

Hey if this word salad means something to you, power to ya, but Yockey appears to me to be to be a literal madman who read one book in his life and blurfed unrelated segments of it onto the page.

Welund Saturday 25 Feb 2017

Chic bot Saturday 25 Feb 2017

i will actually make this tonight

squf Saturday 25 Feb 2017

wtf i hate yockey and otto strasser now

e: I don't actually hate them. This thread is obviously memeing on poor Yockey for being a shit-tier writer, which is fine because that definitely appears to be true, but I mean the guy was a lawyer who seemed to be more involved in politics than anything. As mentioned he did spend a lot of time travelling around, meeting with different groups and movements and such, I read he even met with the president of Egypt which is more impressive to me than writing a (bad) book.

I just feel bad for him that he seems to have loved the West / Europe so much, and he had to spend much of his later life on the run from the FBI and was eventually imprisoned and died for it.

Bob Dylan Roof Saturday 25 Feb 2017

These are my favorite Yockey passages

The relation of war to politics is clear. Clausewitz, in the usually misquoted passage, called war “the continuation of political intercourse by other means.” Usually misquoted, because it does not mean that the military fighting is the continuation of politics, for this it is not. Fighting has its own strategic and tactical grammar. It has its own organic rules and imperatives. War does not have however a motivation of its own— this is supplied by politics. As is the intensity of the political struggle, i.e., of the enmity, so is the war.

It was insight into this interrelationship that prompted an English diplomat to say that a politician was better trained for fighting than the soldier, for he fights continually and the soldier only occasionally.

later, a minor german lawyer named Schmidt would make much of these passages.

Chic bot Sunday 26 Feb 2017

https://twitter.com/BotSpengler is now live

Boccaccio Thursday 2 Mar 2017

Yockey is like reading Evola: you read and read, thinking "wow this is really insightful" and then they interject something inane.

Frankly I don't even remember a passage that really stuck out to me in Imperium and I only read it a month or two ago.

KAP Friday 31 Mar 2017

Looks like McLuhan uses that now famous earth-ball term
[IMG]

Yockey reads like Spengler thrown into a random word generator

9 posts