Francis Parker Yockey-

[Billy Score]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Parker_Yockey

Francis Parker Yockey, (September 18, 1917 – June 16, 1960), was an American philosopher and polemicist best known for his neo-Spenglerian book Imperium, published under the pen name Ulick Varange in 1948.

Contents [hide]
1 Early Life
2 Later Life and Works
3 References
4 External links



[edit]
Early Life
Yockey was born in Chicago, Illinois and had famiy ties to Michigan. His parents were anglophiles who raised him to appreciate European high culture. Subsequently, Yockey was introduced to classical music through his mother, who studied at the Chicago Music College. He proved to have a prodigious talent for the piano and developed his repertoire to include Liszt, Beethoven, Chopin, and Deutschland über alles.

He flirted with Marxism momentarily in his youth, but later became a devotee of the elitist and anti-materialist Oswald Spengler after reading Spengler's seminal text, The Decline of the West, in 1934. While still a university student in the late 1930s, Yockey had his first political essay published in Social Justice, a periodical distributed under the auspices of Fr. Charles Coughlin, the so-called "radio priest," who at the time was widely known for his sympathetic view of the anti-Bolshevist policies associated with Hitler's Germany, Mussolini's Italy, and Franco's Spain.

Yockey attended at least seven universities, including Georgetown's School of Foreign Service, before graduating cum laude from the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1941.

[edit]
Later Life and Works
Over time, Yockey contacted a number of far-right organizations. These included the German American Bund, the German American National Alliance, William Dudley Pelley's Silver Shirts, the Ku Klux Klan, Sir Oswald Mosley's Union Movement, and James H. Madole's National Renaissance Party. Yockey and George Lincoln Rockwell were alleged to be foes, due primarily to Rockwell's offense at Yockey's anti-Americanism and sympathies with the Soviet Union and other anti-zionist leftist movements. Proponents of universal Nazism, like Colin Jordan, disagreed with Yockey's view on race, and saw Yockeyism as a kind of "New Strasserism".

In early 1946, Yockey began working for the United States War Department as a post-trial review attorney for the Nuremberg Trials in Germany. He soon began agitating against Allied occupation of Germany, as well as what he perceived to be the biased procedures of the Nuremberg tribunal. Eventually, he was fired for "abandonment of position" in November 1946.

Without notes, Yockey wrote his first book, Imperium, in Brittas Bay, Ireland over the winter and early spring of 1948. It is a Spenglerian critique of 19th century materialism and rationalism. It has been endorsed by conservative thinkers around the world including German General Otto Remer, Professor of Classics at the University of Illinois, Revilo P. Oliver, and Italian esotericist Julius Evola. Yockey becamed embittered with Sir Oswald Mosley after the latter refused to publish Imperium upon its completion.

Along with Mosleyites Guy Chesham and John Gannon, Yockey formed the European Liberation Front (ELF) in 1948-49. The ELF issued a newsletter, Frontfighter, and published Yockey's virulent anti-American polemic, "The Proclamation of London".

In late 1952, Yockey traveled to Prague and witnessed the Prague Trials. He believed they "foretold a Russian break with Jewry", a view he put forward in his most controversial article What Is Behind The Hanging Of The Eleven Jews In Prague?.

Yockey met Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser, who he called "a great and vigorous man", in Cairo in 1953. He worked briefly for the Egyptian Information Ministry writing anti-Zionist propaganda. Yockey saw the rise of non-aligned states in the Third World, and in particular the Arab Revolt, as significant geopolitical challenges to "the Jewish-American power" [1].

Yockey was found dead with an empty cyanide capsule nearby while in a jail cell under FBI supervision, after having been incarcerated on charges of using false passports.

Maurice Bardèche, a french writer of fascist sympathies, wrote about his meeting with Yockey in his semi-autobiographical novel "Suzanne et le taudis". Yockey, called "Ulrich Clarence" in the book, was described by Bardèche as a complete lunatic.


Any thoughts? I am in favor of several of his ideas. The soviet leaning and the fascist leaning should unite against a common enemy.

[Hakluyt]

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/1570270392.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1570270392/103-6911159-4375065?v=glance&n=283155&n=507846&s=books&v=glance

[Kodos]

What was wrong with 19th century materialism and rationalism... western civilization pwn3d when that was our ethos.

[Hakluyt]

What was wrong with 19th century materialism and rationalism... western civilization pwn3d when that was our ethos.
Materialism means economic determinism, i.e American liberalism, which may have pwned but has led to inevitable decline. Rationalism has a direct genesis with 20th century humanism, where they essentially built on traditional empiricism, which might be what you had in mind, to their own ends (though i dont necessarily disagree with all rationalist progressive ideals myself).

[Uberberserker]

Any thoughts?

My current political philosphy of Fascistic Odinism has been greatly influenced by Yockey. (my two other main influences are Varg Vikernes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varg_Vikernes) and Alain de Benoist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alain_de_Benoist) )

He stated that the Russian Soviets had turned on the jews during the time of some of Stalins last Purges (This is during the time period when Stalin spoke of 'Socialism in one State', a sort of proto-National Bolshevism, and broke with the International Communism of the jews, also note that the Soviets supplied weapons to the Arabs and not Israel) and that in the long run orthodox economic Communism is not as destructive to European Culture as Capitalism. One need only look at the Current State of Russia and its lack of Diversity compared to Western Europe or the US to see that Yockey was correct. (I won't get into Cultural Marxism or the Frankfurt School since that is a separate ideology from the orthodox economic Communism I am speaking of)

He was a great advocate of our People looking towards the East (Slavic Lands) and it should be noted that Greats such as Otto Remer and even Ernst Zundel have advocated similar views which need to be heeded today. Mother Russia may be one of our last hopes.

[Vindex]

From what I have read, a lot of his views are identical to Evola. As for Facism it is almost a different version of christianity where the state becomes the saviour messiah, we already have that today.

[Billy Score]

Varg Vikernes? I'll agree to some degree, vikernes has some excellent points but i am surprised someone would put his name up as a primary political influence.

[jcs]

Varg Vikernes? I'll agree to some degree, vikernes has some excellent points but i am surprised someone would put his name up as a primary political influence.
His politics are basically a rehashing of things said by other thinkers, some great, most crap. Varg's thought is valuable because it introduces a large number of people to a more sensible world-view. So, if he's an influence on someone, dandy; just be sure to look into more developed thought as well.

[Fade the Butcher]

What was wrong with 19th century materialism and rationalism... western civilization pwn3d when that was our ethos.Umm . . . that's our ethos today.

[Billy Score]

His politics are basically a rehashing of things said by other thinkers, some great, most crap. Varg's thought is valuable because it introduces a large number of people to a more sensible world-view. So, if he's an influence on someone, dandy; just be sure to look into more developed thought as well.
The danger is the morons who worship varg simply because its cool and rebellious without seriously embracing/understanding what he is saying and what he wants.

[Uberberserker]

. Varg's thought is valuable because it introduces a large number of people to a more sensible world-view. So, if he's an influence on someone, dandy; just be sure to look into more developed thought as well.

That is right, basicly all Varg has done is taken alot of good stuff and 're-molded' it into a cool Metal form. He does speak often of the Pagan Culture so he encourages folks to learn as much as possible about such things and in interviews often lists authors/ figures he himself is reading/ learning about.

Anyhow back onto Yockey, I wanted to add that his ideas on 'Cultural Vitalism' are very important as well.

[Anarch]

From what I have read, a lot of his views are identical to Evola. As for Facism it is almost a different version of christianity where the state becomes the saviour messiah, we already have that today.

Evola and Yockey disagree on metaphysics. Evola is effectively a Platonist, while Yockey believes instead that each Culture possesses a 'soul' which then drives its evolution through time, from its beginning to its end, with no absolute 'objective order' rooted in the divine, as Evola promulgates.

[Vindex]

Yockey book was very identical to Revolt.


Evola and Yockey disagree on metaphysics. Evola is effectively a Platonist, while Yockey believes instead that each Culture possesses a 'soul' which then drives its evolution through time, from its beginning to its end, with no absolute 'objective order' rooted in the divine, as Evola promulgates.

[Anarch]

No, it wasn't. Evola's concept of Tradition (very much akin to Plato's concept of the Ideas (or Forms)) is seen as both eternal and universally applicable, and Evola's outlook on the decay of the West (and the rest of the world's civilizations) is seen as the natural order resulting from cyclical history, the first stage of the cycle which directly connects with the world of Tradition, the decline from there being the natural result of us living in a world of becoming, decay, transformation (here there are similarities to the partial adoption of Heraclitian metaphysics by Plato), chaos. Order is formed out of chaos, the blueprint for order being the world of Tradition, and order eventually degrading into chaos.

I have already explained the metaphysics of Yockey's philosophy of history. They are certainly identical. True, both books treat the same issues (such as feminism, bolshevism, capitalism, materialism, utilitarianism) but this by no means implies that they are 'very identical' (whatever that means - last I checked, something is either identical or it isn't...).

I highly recommend you read Yockey's Imperium and Revolt Against the Modern World by Evola, before you go making claims which are blatantly absurd given knowledge of both texts.

[Vindex]

Well it seems to be a disagreement of terms, identical to me means along the same ideas. I read Imperium, and read Revolt.




No, it wasn't. Evola's concept of Tradition (very much akin to Plato's concept of the Ideas (or Forms)) is seen as both eternal and universally applicable, and Evola's outlook on the decay of the West (and the rest of the world's civilizations) is seen as the natural order resulting from cyclical history, the first stage of the cycle which directly connects with the world of Tradition, the decline from there being the natural result of us living in a world of becoming, decay, transformation (here there are similarities to the partial adoption of Heraclitian metaphysics by Plato), chaos. Order is formed out of chaos, the blueprint for order being the world of Tradition, and order eventually degrading into chaos.

I have already explained the metaphysics of Yockey's philosophy of history. They are certainly identical. True, both books treat the same issues (such as feminism, bolshevism, capitalism, materialism, utilitarianism) but this by no means implies that they are 'very identical' (whatever that means - last I checked, something is either identical or it isn't...).

I highly recommend you read Yockey's Imperium and Revolt Against the Modern World by Evola, before you go making claims which are blatantly absurd given knowledge of both texts.

[jcs]

Evola and Yockey disagree on metaphysics. Evola is effectively a Platonist, while Yockey believes instead that each Culture possesses a 'soul' which then drives its evolution through time, from its beginning to its end, with no absolute 'objective order' rooted in the divine, as Evola promulgates.
Both ideas are kind of silly, really. Curious: do you think Spengler actually thought cultures were organisms, or that he was using the term to explain the life-cycle of a culture?
I think Yockey might have interpreted Spengler too literally.

[Anarch]

Was he using the term literally? Here's a question with relevance to a problem touched on by Deleuze, that of multiplicities - that a concept (a 'multiplicity') has several subsumed 'singularities' (e.g. Hobbes' social contract: man as a wolf to man, man possessing the capacity to reason, surrender of political sovereignty to a central organisation). However, concepts are intensive multiplicities, in that adding or a singularity in relation to the multiplicity changes its nature (hence 'intensive' vs 'extensive'). The extension (or retraction) of multiplicities can also not change its nature, but rather encompass a larger number of singularities (e.g. the concept 'American' can be extended in its application to incorporate more people into the concept) without altering the concept, in which case the multiplicity is extensive. To answer your question - Spengler used 'organism' as an intensive multiplicity. He employed it in a different context which altered its definition. 'Literality' is contextual.

[Leif]

The soviet leaning and the fascist leaning should unite against a common enemy.

Last time we tried that it cost us 25,000,000 dead.

[Billy Score]

Last time we tried that it cost us 25,000,000 dead.
that's interesting, i was unaware that Mussolini invaded the Soviet Union or declared war. I believe that was Hitler. Hitler even SURPRESSED fascists like the Iron Guard in Romania. He and Mussolini were even foes(Mussolini criticized him and was very much opposed to him before 1935 when he was marginalized by the League of Nations along with the Third reich. It only made sense for them to become closer).

and i don't recall trying to ALLY with any of the fascist movements? I recall the Soviets signing a NEUTRALITY agreement.

[Leif]

that's interesting, i was unaware that Mussolini invaded the Soviet Union or declared war. I believe that was Hitler. Hitler even SURPRESSED fascists like the Iron Guard in Romania.

Maybe that's because Hitler was a German nationalist and the Iron Guard were Romanian nationalists.

He and Mussolini were even foes(Mussolini criticized him and was very much opposed to him before 1935 when he was marginalized by the League of Nations along with the Third reich. It only made sense for them to become closer).

If you're trying to draw a line between Hitler and Mussolini's "Fascism" then it's altogether the same, as Mussolini was as counter-active to socialism as Hitler.

and i don't recall trying to ALLY with any of the fascist movements? I recall the Soviets signing a NEUTRALITY agreement.

Yes, and look what happened with that! Both sides were still arming themselves for a future conflict...Imagine if the soviets had joined an alliance with Germany and were even 10% less prepared for war in 1941. It would've been utter catastrophe! I very much doubt the soviets had any confidence in Germany and only signed the peace agreement due to their ability to grab half of Poland as a buffer.

To give confidence to any kind of cooperation between the far right and far left is an absolute absurdity. What would be the purpose; destabilize the capitalist nations? Assuming that such a level of cooperation was even possible, the irreconcilable political movements would inevitably come into mortal conflict. Our position on fascism / bourgeois nationalism should be the same as our position on capitalism, one of total and unrestrained war.

Should I bring up China? What happened when the Communists and Nationalists cooperated for a few years? The Nationalists, with their safety secured, immediately began a purge of the Communist Party, arresting and executing the leadership. It was the same with the Nazis; with Hitler's power secured, he immediately attacked the more worker-leaning party members and grass-roots power structures.

But it's not just a matter of getting stabbed in back, as most of these groups admit they would stab us face-to-face just the same.

[Billy Score]

Your idea of "unrestrained war" builds on nothing. Marxism as a movement is obsolete as it has been hijacked by liberal weaklings and slandered to the point where no one outside of the third world would ever vote for a communist party.

Lest not forget Castro is a nationalist, Ho Chi Minh was a nationalist, most of the marxist revolutionaries were nationalists.

And you are incorrect on the Romanians- Hitler got rid of the iron guard not because he harbored any ill will towards romanians, he supported nationalist movements (see croatia). Fascist ideology and nazi ideology are not altogether the same.

[Leif]

Your idea of "unrestrained war" builds on nothing. Marxism as a movement is obsolete as it has been hijacked by liberal weaklings and slandered to the point where no one outside of the third world would ever vote for a communist party.

Yes, it is in a severe slump because the movement has been sidetracked by secondary issues and improper positions, like yours, that communism is not possible in the West.

The third-world, while far from becoming more socialist, is becoming increasingly more like the West in its capitalism. That acknowledged, if as you say, communism is not possible in the West, how will it be possible in the soon-to-come Westernized third-world? Logically, it would not. Therefore logically your own position bears the conclusion that Marxism is totally obsolete, and all hope for a communist movement, not to mention any kind of revolution, is totally hopeless.

What kind of socialist are you? Alliances with the reactionary far right, admiration for fascist movements, denunciation of Marxism as obsolete, what kind of socialist holds these ideas?

Lest not forget Castro is a nationalist, Ho Chi Minh was a nationalist, most of the marxist revolutionaries were nationalists.

Correct, and none of them were fascists.

And you are incorrect on the Romanians- Hitler got rid of the iron guard not because he harbored any ill will towards romanians, he supported nationalist movements (see croatia). Fascist ideology and nazi ideology are not altogether the same.

False. Hitler wanted German power, the Iron Guard wanted Romanian power. Hitler went against they that challenged German domination.

[Jimbo Gomez]

Why this irrational hatred for fascism ymir? Its economical model is closer to socialism than the liberal capitalism we have today.

[Billy Score]

I knew he would rabidly jump at my statement on marxism. But go to any western nation and say you are a "marxist." See how seriously they take you. If they do take you seriously then they'll chuck you in jail (see Hungary) and that is the rare case. Marxism has been far too villifed and smeared to be effective as a banner. And you are incorrect on the third world-

Look at chavez and south american nations electing far left or socialist leaders. They certainly are far more polarized then the US parties and far more open to socialist ideals. Nepal still has a strong revolutionary movement, and India has a sizable party. But unless something extremely drastic (like nuclear holocaust or something along these absurd lines) the west will not change and the idea of accepting any "radical" doctrine or "ideology" will be little to none.

ymir what are your thoughts on Juan Peron? Distributionism?

[Leif]

Why this irrational hatred for fascism ymir? Its economical model is closer to socialism than the liberal capitalism we have today.

It bears some similarities but it makes several irreconcilable mistakes in its analysis of society, the chief among those being the idea. as espoused by Spengler, that the state can either mediate or totally abolish class conflicts. When has the capitalist class shown itself to be anything but an international cabal of hucksters? Not to mention that fascist movements have tended to join up with the capitalists whenever a dispute between the work-force and the investors arose. These are just secondary issues though, the primary issue being that fascists are the self-proclaimed enemies of socialism.

I knew he would rabidly jump at my statement on marxism. But go to any western nation and say you are a "marxist." See how seriously they take you. If they do take you seriously then they'll chuck you in jail (see Hungary) and that is the rare case. Marxism has been far too villifed and smeared to be effective as a banner.

I agree socialism is vilified. How does your solution of uniting socialists with the far right alleviate this problem? Taking the two most ostracized groups and joining them together would compound our problem tremendously while setting ourselves up for a stab in the back.

And you are incorrect on the third world-

Look at chavez and south american nations electing far left or socialist leaders. They certainly are far more polarized then the US parties and far more open to socialist ideals. Nepal still has a strong revolutionary movement, and India has a sizable party. But unless something extremely drastic (like nuclear holocaust or something along these absurd lines) the west will not change and the idea of accepting any "radical" doctrine or "ideology" will be little to none.

Radical ideas are unpopular everywhere, it's what makes them radical. It is not necessary for the majority of people to have a complete philosophical understanding of Marxism to be supporters of a socialist movement. The developing world will not have any more revolutions, as the massive Western military machine will crush them where-ever they may appear. There are currently many Western militaries giving aid to the Nepalese government, they are the sole reason why the Maoists haven't taken over the country. But let's say the Maoists do take over the country? What then? Begin a commodity economy and become capitalists as Marx's historical method says they would and all historical examples have shown?

Hugo Chavez has barely escaped assassination and displacement multiple times. I doubt that his regime, if as progressive as it is said to be, will last much longer due to its strategic oil producing capacity. I would say it has lasted this long due to the fact that the U.S. has had most of its forces tied down in the middle east.

ymir what are your thoughts on Juan Peron? Distributionism?

I am not familiar with Peron enough to give commentary on him. Distributivism? That is a catholic-idealist fantasy, based upon moral principles rather than material ones. I.e. it offers no idea of why distributivism would come about, how feasible it is, etc.

[Vindex]

It seems to me that mordern day marxism is made up of two things, hating the White Race, and cheering every degenerate mode of existance. Once in awhile they might mention capitalism.lol

I would take National Socialism over all, to me it is the healthy bridge.

[Billy Score]

first of all, ymir, your giving me negative reputation points has taken off the gloves and you will never live down this offensive act. I did not flame you and my post certainly wasn't bad, even if you disagreed. However i'll remember this in the future.

Distributivism? That is a catholic-idealist fantasy, based upon moral principles rather than material ones. I.e. it offers no idea of why distributivism would come about, how feasible it is, etc.

explain to me, ymir the last stage of "communism." I want to know what you thinkn of the glorious "stateless society" where everyone is equal and happy and no rules exist or law or military or anything because everything is perfect?:rofl:

Don't talk to me about idealism. it doesn't get any more idealistic than what i described above.

As I said, i support marxism until the line between marxism and anarchy blur. However i do not sit well with the direction marxism has taken in recent years (and no, this is not because of people like me, but infact, because of the OPPOSITE of people like me (ie rootless decadent amoral nihilists with no snse of virtue, no idea what honor is, who live only for the present, only for creature comforts and only embrace marxism because they feel it encourages their degeneracy). But they lack forsight. They do not see that the effect on the spirit of humanity is only creating one large mass of historyless, cultureless people who's identity of themselves is one big question mark. How can you love diversity and support multiculturalism, for example? Marxism does not address certain issues and it is necessary to address them then. Marx was a human and his works had errors. That they were few is a show on his own abilities and intellect and insights. He (and Engels, let us not forget Engels) certainly towers over many of his contemporaries but this does not make him a god. I persoanlly feel quite uneasy about even criticizing him or your position in the slightest because your position is the position o have held and still on many levels still hold.

However i think your anti fascist, anti nationalist stance stems as much from ideology as it does from fear of "becoming what they always said" you would become. Support for stalin by modern "marxists" is as bad as support for Hitler and to you, a stalinist calling for alliance with fascist movements therefore only proves them right.

[Leif]

first of all, ymir, your giving me negative reputation points has taken off the gloves and you will never live down this offensive act. I did not flame you and my post certainly wasn't bad, even if you disagreed. However i'll remember this in the future.

You noticed! :D

explain to me, ymir the last stage of "communism." I want to know what you thinkn of the glorious "stateless society" where everyone is equal and happy and no rules exist or law or military or anything because everything is perfect?

What do I think about it? Like Marx, I rarely imagine the final result of the historical development of mankind. But unlike Distributivism, Scientific Socialists have theorized on how socialism would work, why capitalism will fail, and and more importantly how things exist and develop. Distributivism offers no scientific study of these things and no idea of how society could or would develop into this system. I'm sure it would be nice, but I haven't the slightest idea how we're supposed to make it come about, or even if its possible for it to exist.

Don't talk to me about idealism. it doesn't get any more idealistic than what i described above.

Quite funny that you, the "Marxist" are calling communism idealist.

As I said, i support marxism until the line between marxism and anarchy blur.

Why? The only problem Communists have had with Anarchists, theoretically speaking, is that Anarchists want to abolish not only class, but all forms of hierarchy, which is absurd as any complex civilization requires forms of hierarchy. Marxism does "blur" with Anarchism except for their agreement on the final result of socialism.

However i do not sit well with the direction marxism has taken in recent years (and no, this is not because of people like me, but infact, because of the OPPOSITE of people like me (ie rootless decadent amoral nihilists with no snse of virtue, no idea what honor is, who live only for the present, only for creature comforts and only embrace marxism because they feel it encourages their degeneracy). But they lack forsight.

I agree that "moral" principles such as humility, generosity, and reciprocity are desirable.

They do not see that the effect on the spirit of humanity is only creating one large mass of historyless, cultureless people who's identity of themselves is one big question mark. How can you love diversity and support multiculturalism, for example?

I don't "love" diversity anymore than I'd "love" uniformity. I feel there would be a certain advantage to having a homogenous population, and certain disadvantages to having a heterogenous population. The second part of the question requires that I support multiculturalism, which I don't.

Marxism does not address certain issues and it is necessary to address them then. Marx was a human and his works had errors. That they were few is a show on his own abilities and intellect and insights. He (and Engels, let us not forget Engels) certainly towers over many of his contemporaries but this does not make him a god. .

I agree with this.

I persoanlly feel quite uneasy about even criticizing him or your position in the slightest because your position is the position o have held and still on many levels still hold

However i think your anti fascist, anti nationalist stance stems as much from ideology as it does from fear of "becoming what they always said" you would become. Support for stalin by modern "marxists" is as bad as support for Hitler and to you, a stalinist calling for alliance with fascist movements therefore only proves them right.

Well, regardless of where my anti-fascism stems from (I'm not entirely opposed to nationalism, which I can explain), it is the natural position of socialists, specifically Communists, to hold. Mussolini broke up strikes and denounced socialism, Hitlers thugs fought us in the streets, and proclaimed communism to be a tool of international jewry. I just don't see how or why we could ally ourselves with them.

[Billy Score]

They saw bolshevism as a tool of jewry because
1. many jews were high in the government and
2. because it was internationalist. Internationalism, encouraging multiculturalism is something associated with judaism. See Codreanu's critique of democracy for this very reason. It addresses this issue.

Also you forgot that mussolini was a marxist in his youth. I agree with and understand your position but that is the point of yockeyism. Yockey saw that the Soviet Union had shed its "jewishness" to some degree,.. its zionism and he was a fascist. We are not in the 1920's. We are not being attacked by gangs of blackshirts are we? Ideologically, you may be opposed but where does pragmatism fit in? Use one side to destroy the other if you feel that strong. I personally don't. I am a support of national socialists, i am simply ambivalent to most of those movements. They certainly were not "evil". Any ideology that inspires men to such fervor certainly has admirable qualities. This is simple objectivism.

[Dionysus]

As far as I know Hitler didn't get rid of the Iron Guard, and certainly not because they were in any way a threat, or challenge toward German domination.:confused:

- There was a power struggle inside the Romanian elite when the Iron Guard rebelled against Marshal Antonescu.

- Antonescu offered to Hitler a choice; his own faction or the Iron Guard. Hitler choose Antonescu, who then preceded to crush the Legionnaire rebellion.

- In 1941 Leader of the Iron Guard, Simia, through Hitler's influence on Marshal Antonescu, was allowed to leave Romania (and surely certain death) for exile inside of Germany.

- In 1944, when the Romanians quit their alliance with the Reich, Simia, of Iron Guard fame became the Leader of the Romanian government in exile, situated in Wien.

[Billy Score]

Oh no i am not saying Hitler singlehandedly crushed the Iron guard but he supported antonescu.

[Leif]

They saw bolshevism as a tool of jewry because
1. many jews were high in the government and
2. because it was internationalist. Internationalism, encouraging multiculturalism is something associated with judaism. See Codreanu's critique of democracy for this very reason. It addresses this issue.

The point being that this was utter slander on part of the Fascists.

Also you forgot that mussolini was a marxist in his youth. I agree with and understand your position but that is the point of yockeyism. Yockey saw that the Soviet Union had shed its "jewishness" to some degree,.. its zionism and he was a fascist. We are not in the 1920's. We are not being attacked by gangs of blackshirts are we?

Actually, there was a group of people that collected photographs of leftists in the UK so they could hunt them down and terrorize them. I believe they are still active.

Ideologically, you may be opposed but where does pragmatism fit in?

How the hell is a union between fascism and socialism pragmatic? Fascism is far more ostracized than socialism in the West, and their goals are completely counter-productive to ours. We would be organizing strikes while they would be breaking them. Your position makes no sense from the stance of pragmatism, on which ideology is based.

Use one side to destroy the other if you feel that strong. I personally don't. I am a support of national socialists, i am simply ambivalent to most of those movements. They certainly were not "evil". Any ideology that inspires men to such fervor certainly has admirable qualities. This is simple objectivism.

How can you be ambivalent to the political movement that sets itself in direct conflict with us? Does it matter if they have admirable qualities, whatever they may be?

[Billy Score]

Communists aren't ostracized in the west? This is a new revelation to me.

[Leif]

Communists aren't ostracized in the west? This is a new revelation to me.

What I wrote:

Fascism is far more ostracized than socialism in the West...


I can't see why tainting the name of socialism with outright collaboration with fascists is going to help us any.

[Boleslaw]

Any thoughts?

Put it simply.....his theories are full of shit!

[Leif]

Put it simply.....his theories are full of shit!

Well, I'm convinced! :rolleyes:

[Billy Score]

ymir- ever hear of ANTIFA? It is not all that one sided. It is not just innocent leftists getting their asses handed to them by a bunch of brute thug fascist blackshirts and skinheads. Well, it probably is because most leftists are effeminate emo turds who are once again, more concerned with legalizing marijuana than any actual cause. the skinheads may be braindead but to say that the fascist tendency and the soviet socialist tendency cannot form a coalition (NOT a neutrality pact) against the mediocre, the "democratic", we'd certianly be in business. the reason the right beat socialists up in the past was because they were supporting or defending the government while ingratiating themselves with it. The leftists had no interest in any such thing and made this known. Now, both are marginalized groups who have no reason to court the government. Infact i'd say the far right is far more distrustful than the leftists.

[Ixtab]

-The notion that Communists and Fascists are equally ostracised, or somehow on an equal standing, is of dubious verisimilitude. Far-left parties readily organise crowds of over half a million, have plenty of funding and high-level contact with the governments of Cuba, Venezuala, the D.P.R.K., and the former governments of Yugoslavia and Iraq; some have contact with F.A.R.C., Palestinian resistance groups, and the kind. The Maoist groups in North America (filth though many of them are) have ties with a politically-significant, ideologically-unified network of Maoist insurgency groups -- that extend to Peru, India and Nepal.
-The Fascists do not have any of this. They lack the financial backing, the connexions, the numbers, the political significance, and the high-level of organisation that the far-Left has, and which would precondition any meaningful alliance. Not only would an effective alliance with Fascists be next to impossible for these reasons alone, but such an alliance, even if possible, would be profoundly injurious to the Communist and Socialist movement; the political albatross involved would override any need for an alliance under all circumstances.
-Enough of this foolishness, Mazdak. Why don't you just start calling yourself a Fascist and get it over with?

[Leif]

Enough of this foolishness, Mazdak. Why don't you just start calling yourself a Fascist and get it over with?

He already admitted that in the shoutbox...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v207/billybobzombie/mazfascistpolitics.jpg

[Billy Score]

#1 someone please delete the above post. It has no context or purpose on this page.

Fascist politics, as in fascist style. The fascists knew how to get a rise out of people and how to stir them up. I don't care how logical or justified or how truthful it is, talking to pigfarmer chuck about dialectic materialism is not going to get a rise out of him. Castro did this- he studied the way fascists delivered speeches, their mannerisms and adopted them to some degree. Colorful speech that appeals to the masses is not going to come about via talking about marxist theories or saying "BUSH SUCKS"

And Jotunlock, i never denied that THIRD WORLD NATIONS have excellent chances of establishing socialism (and are so) but the first world simply cannot do this. First world nations have to be approached differently.

I don't call myself a fascist because i am not one.

[Ixtab]

Fascist politics, as in fascist style. The fascists knew how to get a rise out of people and how to stir them up.So do most successful political groups. It has nothing to do with Fascism, and forming an alliance with Fascists is not going to make Communists more successful on this score. How skilled are the Fascists of to-day at "getting a rise of people" and "stirring them up"? How often do the Fascists of to-day organise crowds of half a million? What use could Fascists possibly be in this regard? The Fascists of to-day are a pathetic medley of ineloquent Fantasists that aren't worth the political baggage of being associated with by any political group aspiring to create a Democratic society, be that group currently popular or no.

Castro did this- he studied the way fascists delivered speeches, their mannerisms and adopted them to some degree.Evidence? He studied the way in which most successful politicians at the time delivered speeches and the principles of elocution adhered to by good speakers in general. Many of the things you think peculiar to the "style" of Fascism were originally stolen from Socialists. They even learned how to organise a party by the Communists.

Colorful speech that appeals to the masses is not going to come about via talking about marxist theories or saying "BUSH SUCKS"Colourful speech has nothing to do specifically with Fascism. The art of elocution has been in decline in America, among all political and non-political groups, for the past fourty years. It has partly to do with the political system existing in America, and partly to do with the introduction of microphones, which makes loud speaking (great orators tend to be loud) unnecessary.

... the first world simply cannot do this. First world nations have to be approached differently.Which has nothing to do with my criticisms.

[Billy Score]

How often do the Fascists of to-day organise crowds of half a million?

How often to socialists gather crowds of half a million in first world country that don't look like a parade of pimply faced blue haired teens wearing spikes?

The fascists (for some pretty obvious reasons) have been surpressed and undermined entirely. AT this point attacking them is like kicking a dog when its down. Basically, let us put it this way, at a ground i think we should all agree- anitfa and violent anti fascism is irrelevant at this point. All this obsession with labeling things "fascist" or "nazi" is immature and stupid and the left loves doing it. The left looks like a bunch of whiners most of the time. I will post an excellent article in the SP on this from an argentinian book on the subject.



They even learned how to organise a party by the Communists.

So you already admit influence between the parties.

Colourful speech has nothing to do specifically with Fascism. The art of elocution has been in decline in America, among all political and non-political groups, for the past fourty years. It has partly to do with the political system existing in America, and partly to do with the introduction of microphones, which makes loud speaking (great orators tend to be loud) unnecessary.

Howard dean is an example of this. It seems passionate speakers do not exist but this is also because of the fact that we associate passionate speech with fascists etc. I do not dispute most of what you say except the first line. On a side note i kind of find speeches by hitler and mussolini, if seen on video, kind of flamboyant. Their gestures are so over the top and exaggerated. A clenched fist is one thing but they go limpwristed half the time.

Which has nothing to do with my criticisms.

Which has EVERYTHING to do with your criticisms. you and ymir label me a fascist because i am advocating a different method. Instead of wasting time on fighting supposed nazis or fascists, of decrying David duke or marginalized figures who will never have influence outside of a few dozen or few hundred (or even few thousand) people. At this point we are just fighting ghosts.

[Ixtab]

How often to socialists gather crowds of half a million in first world country ...Relatively often, actually.
And this doesn't answer my question.

The fascists (for some pretty obvious reasons) have been surpressed and undermined entirely. AT this point attacking them is like kicking a dog when its down.So you are saying that Communists need to further ostracise themselves from society by forming an alliance with more ostracised political groups, that Communists need to be further surpressed and undermined by forming an alliance with groups that are "completely" suppressed and undermined. And this will somehow help to create a Democratic, socialistic society. The utter idiocy of this "plan" of yours scarcely needs to be demonstrated.

Basically, let us put it this way, at a ground i think we should all agree- anitfa and violent anti fascism is irrelevant at this point.If anti-Fascism is irrelevant, it could only be because Fascism, itself, is irrelevant.

So you already admit influence between the parties.I "admit" that Fascists have stolen the techniques of Communist and Socialist party organisation, the better to fight against Communism and Socialism. This is not indicative of any ideological affinity between Fascists and Communists, any more than the common use of guns by warring nations is indicative of a desire for peaceful co-existence.


Which has EVERYTHING to do with your criticisms. you and ymir label me a fascistI was criticising the idiocy of a Communist alliance with Fascism. Only the last paragraph of the post in question, consisting of a single sentence, commented on your being a Fascist, and did not flow from the preceding paragraphs as a conclusion. Whether you are a Fascist or no, the points I raised continue to stand unrefuted.

[Billy Score]

Relatively often, actually.
And this doesn't answer my question.

nice job taking part of my sentence while ignoring the relevant half. Why don't i do the same for you?
-

This is ... indicative of an.. ideological affinity between Fascists and Communists
HOLY SHIT IX EXPOSED :rolleyes:

So you are saying that Communists need to further ostracise themselves from society by forming an alliance with more ostracised political groups, that Communists need to be further surpressed and undermined by forming an alliance with groups that are "completely" suppressed and undermined. And this will somehow help to create a Democratic, socialistic society.

no. I am saying that communists need to spend less time fighting ghosts and more time dealing with realities. the chance of fascists even regaining a millionth of a percent of what they had is not going to happen in current times.

If anti-Fascism is irrelevant, it could only be because Fascism, itself, is irrelevant.


You did not deny anti fascism's being irrelevant.

I "admit" that Fascists have stolen the techniques of Communist and Socialist party organisation, the better to fight against Communism and Socialism. This is not indicative of any ideological affinity between Fascists and Communists, any more than the common use of guns by warring nations is indicative of a desire for peaceful co-existence.



Use of guns are not the same as rhetoric. ( I listened to a hitler speech that sounded like it could have been given by any communist speaker.) Many fascists WERE former socialists. This is not just coincidential. How do you explain Mussolini's change in this direction?


I was criticising the idiocy of a Communist alliance with Fascism. Only the last paragraph (consisting of a single sentence) had to do with your being a Fascist, and did not flow from the preceding paragraphs as a conclusion. Whether you are a Fascist or no, the points I raised continue to stand unrefuted.

While you avoided my own point and blatantly misquoted me.

[Ixtab]

nice job taking part of my sentence while ignoring the relevant half.I did no such thing. If I did, at least tell me what I missed, so that I can refute it. I don't believe I missed anything, however. Just because I chose not to quote this or that whole paragraph does not mean I have failed to debunk the underlying arguments made in it.

Why don't i do the same for you? I am not guilty of doing anything similar to what you have proceeded to do.

I am saying that communists need to spend less time fighting ghosts and more time dealing with realities.Which ghosts, which realities?

the chance of fascists even regaining a millionth of a percent of what they had is not going to happen in current times.Exactly. Fascists are politically irrelevant, numerically insignificant, ideologically bankrupt, and not worth our time.

You did not deny anti fascism's being irrelevant.It was a conditional statement. If anti-Fascism is irrelevant -- your statement -- it seems to follow that Fascism, itself, is irrelevant. And I would agree that anti-Fascism, as a movement, is currently irrelevant.

Use of guns are not the same as rhetoric.Fascistic oratory does not differ significantly from what was popular at the time.

Many fascists WERE former socialists.Reagan also used to be a Socialist.

How do you explain Mussolini's change in this direction?Fascism is capitalism in crisis. There is nothing Socialistic about Fascism.

While you avoided my own point and blatantly misquoted me.Which "point" did I miss, precisely, and where and how did I misquote you?

[Gaucho]

Yockey was important in that he recognized the threat of Washington-London-Tel Aviv Axis-backed liberalism and the New World Order and the need to support third worldist nationalist movements, unlike other wingnuts in the "National Socialist" movement who would bend over backwards to support judeo-saxon imperialism under the pretext of "fighting communism." I see him as a neo-Strasserite. Strasser also had his head on the right way when he recognized that the USSR could have been a potential ally and it was world capitalism, lobbied by international jewry, that undermined national sovereignty and eventually made Germany, Italy and Japan its pawns. Also, like Strasser, he recognized the stupidity of "biological racialism" and the idea that someones genes made someone superior or that they were a determining factor in ones identity (rather than culture or spirit). If not for Hitlarianism, liberalism wouldn't have the stronghold it has on the world today.

[Jimbo Gomez]

If not for Hitlarianism, liberalism wouldn't have the stronghold it has on the world today.

agreed

Welcome to the Phora by the way. :)