Yockey and Anti-Americanism

Francis Parker Yockey

Reading through the Francis Parker Yockey essay, I am reminded of why I left behind that stage of my ideological career. I was initially enthralled with Yockey due to his sweeping knowledge of history and philosophy. As I learned more about these subjects in my own right, largely inspired by his influence, I began to see the flaws in his analysis.

Where to begin?

1.) Racial Consciousness – White racial consciousness organically grew out of black slavery and the American frontier experience. Creating a White ethnostate is a peculiarly American project. The whole tradition of using race as a marker of ethnic identity started in America and the other colonies.

Europeans never defined themselves in racial terms. The British and Spanish did to a lesser extent after accumulating their colonial empires, but most European nations were never “racially conscious” in the American sense.

Germany’s brief flirtation with racialism was due to Anglo-American influence. Eugenics and Darwinism were also imported into Germany from Britain and America.

The German school of anthropology, which Franz Boas brought to America, had traditionally stressed the importance of culture over heredity. By an accident of history, the German culturalist school of anthropology triumphed in “race materialist” America while Anglo-American hereditarianism was exported to Nazi Germany.

2.) Economics – The Yockey essay posits the existence of “continental Europeans attached to Listian economics.” List’s own “National System” of economics was inspired by his observations of America’s economic development and Alexander Hamilton’s theories.

In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, it was the U.S. that hid behind its high tariff wall and the American state that constantly intervened in the private economy to promote “internal improvements,” the greatest of which was the Panama Canal.

“Yurop” was the world epicenter of the “free trade” movement. America only switched to “free trade” after the Second World War when the rest of the industrialized world was laying in smoldering ruin.

3.) Tradition – This idea that Europeans were attached to authority, tradition, and landed property is widely off the mark. Europe was the site of the French Revolution and Bolshevik Revolution. There was nothing traditional about the NSDAP in Germany or the Fascists in Italy; it was the decline of traditional authority that led to the triumph of Fascism, National Socialism, and Communism.

4.) Liberalism – America was founded as a republic. The American Founders considered themselves republicans, not liberals. Liberalism has traditionally been associated with the Netherlands and British Empire. America became infatuated with “liberalism” in the 1920s and 1930s.

5.) Enlightenment – It is commonplace in racialist circles to deplore the Enlightenment. If only the Enlightenment had never happened, everything would be swell, racially speaking. This is another old chestnut.

Most of the Enlightenment philosophers were racialists. It was the Enlightenment that inspired the first systematic attempts to classify the human races. The Enlightenment lionized science which undermined the old Christian ideal of the unity of humanity.

The roots of anti-racism can be traced back to Romanticism. In reaction to the Enlightenment, the Romantics glorified the “noble savage” and the primitive. They deplored modern industrial civilization. The modern love affair with the negro and all the screeds about how European imperialism has “oppressed” the Third World can be laid at the door of Romanticism, not the Enlightenment.

6.) Destroying Europe – Europe immolated itself in two fratricidal World Wars. It is hardly the fault of Americans that Communism was so popular in Europe or that European nation-states could not get along. A thoughtful American might respond that if Europe had developed a greater sense of racial consciousness, it would never have blown itself to pieces and lost its world leadership.

7.) Jews – Europeans emancipated the Jews all by themselves. By the early twentieth century, the Jewish Problem was already far advanced in Germany. Jews were involved in subversive movements all across Europe.

8.) Corruption – European nationalists have claimed for centuries that poor, innocent Europe is being corrupted by hopelessly decadent America.

In fact, upon close examination, you will see that the opposite is true: communism, romanticism, socialism, feminism, anarchism, fascism, liberalism, anti-racism, anti-fascism, postmodernism, cultural relativism, and post-structuralism were imported into America from Europe.

American youth are indoctrinated in these subversive ideals in public schools which is another European innovation. The last thing they are taught is their own history and traditions.

Francis Parker Yockey was brilliant in many ways, but his demonization of America and his romanticized portrait of Europe is false and misleading. That said, I highly recommend reading him. No self respecting White Nationalist should be without a copy of Imperium in his private library.

About Hunter Wallace 9686 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent

5 Comments

  1. One can and should be pan-Aryan in sympathies: when the brownies are putting our mutiliated corpses in the ground, I doubt they will construct epitaphs of ‘here lies a southern secessionist’, ‘here lies a nordic’, ‘here lies an american’. But ultimately, the only sphere of action for any one of us is in our own backyards and there needn’t be a worldwide imperium of whiteness. I have no intention of getting one internationale off of our backs only to hand our sovereignty over to another, even if pro-white. @Vlad Katonic

    Well, it seems as if Yockey’s brand of ‘pan-Aryanism’ arose in very particular, individual circumstances, in ‘his own backyard’ if you will, and not necessarily out of some academic or arcane interpretation of philosophy.

    This is a story that I heard of, and it is also cited in Wikipedia in the article on Yockey, that says he got his initiation into his racial Weltanschauung regarding Whiteness after being viciously assaulted by a gang of feral Negroes:

    Yockey was born in Chicago, Illinois, but his family was forced to return to Ludington, Michigan in 1932 (where they were originally from) after they lost money in the Great Depression. 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 Musical College. He proved to have a prodigious talent for the piano and developed his repertoire to include Liszt, Beethoven, Chopin, and Haydn. Yockey also said that his ideas about race were initially the result of a car accident he was in as a youth, in which he was subsequently assaulted by several African Americans. He lost his front teeth as a result of the incident, and wore dentures for the rest of his life.

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

    White Americans of various ethnicities and backgrounds cerrtainly have a heck of a lot in common regarding this trenchant problem, that of, as Lothrop Stoddard would call it, the ‘Rising Tide of Color’ against any and all things White, Western and European, and the various anti-White personalities and coalitions have done a good job bringing out this dormant, though necessary cooperation in the Son’s of Europa when the situation called for it.

    Reminds me of one of the best quotes from Robertson’s The Dispossessed Majority:

    Racism, it should also be mentioned, operates in different orbits in different locations. Consider two American soldiers, one of Scandinavian, the other of South Italian origin, guarding a lonely outpost facing the North Koreans or the North Vietnamese. At home the first might have called the second a Latin or an Italian when he was trying to be polite, a “Wop” or a “Greaser” when he wasn’t. Now he feels himself in the presence of a fellow White.

    http://www.solargeneral.com/library/dm.pdf

  2. The Hodgson paper goes well beyond demolishing the one to one argument. You and your sources have not shown that immigration had a negative effect on native birth rates.

    The experts I have cited provide compelling arguments and evidence in support of the hypothesis that immigration contributed to the decline in native birth rates. Given the enormous economic and social effects of mass immigration, it would in fact be highly surprising if it had no effect on native birth rates. Criticizing this or that idea regarding the relationship between immigration and birth rates is a long way from showing that there was and is no relationship between immigration and birth rates.

    Italy is a small, overcrowded nation with a relatively low non-White minority of recent vintage. So the comparison is absurd. But if that wasn’t the case; if Italy had a large non-White population and a sprawling national territory, then no, I most certainly would not. I would welcome it.

    The cheap labor immigrants from southern and eastern Europe did not settle the frontier. They did not help settle the “sprawling national territory.” Free public land in the West ended about 1880. Southern Europeans got off the steamships that brought them here and went straight into tenements in Northeastern urban areas. These cities were already plenty crowded. The native American was race-replaced in many parts of the Northeast by this mass influx.

    It’s quite possible 19th century immigrants from Northern Europe who helped settle the frontier benefited the founding stock by increasing carrying capacity. The 1880-1920 mass migration from southern Europe, however, did not increase carrying capacity and was harmful to the interests of Americans.

    Frank Salter writes on pp. 62-63 of On Genetic Interests:

    Immigrants must affect a country’s capacity to hold the native population. If the immigrants contribute to the economy in ways that that the native population cannot, carrying capacity is raised. If they are a drain on resources or average productivity, they lower that capacity by taking the place of potential native born. In the present example, let us assume that immigrants have equal capacities to the native born, and let us consider immigrants in lots of 10,000. Such a number of immigrants will lower the effective carrying capacity of a country by 10,000, more or less; more if the immigrants have a higher birth rate than the native population; less if their birthrate is lower. To simplify further, assume that birthrates are equal, in which case the loss of effective carrying capacity is 10,000. If the immigrants and native born have the same ethnicity the native population loses no ethnic genetic interests. Kin being replaced by kin of similar degree. But if the immigrants are from different ethnies, especially genetically distant ones, there will be a loss of genetic interests for each member of the native population. How large is that loss measured in units of kinship?

    Then I’m also a poster child for why without immigrants the nation as a whole would have the racial demographics of Mississippi, Alabama and South Carolina.

    1790 Census

    Vermont: 99.7% white
    New Hampshire: 99.4% white
    Maine: 99.4% white
    Massachusetts: 98.6% white
    Rhode Island: 93.7% white
    Connecticut: 97.7% white
    New York: 92.4% white
    New Jersey: 92.3% white
    Pennsylvania: 97.6% white

    Whole country: 80.6% white

    There was not significant immigration to the United States between 1790 and 1830. Here are racial demographics from the 1830 Census.

    1830 Census

    Maine: 99.7% white
    New Hampshire: 99.8% white
    Massachusetts: 98.8% white
    Rhode Island: 96.3% white
    Connecticut: 97.3% white
    Vermont: 99.7% white
    New York: 97.4% white
    New Jersey: 93.6% white
    Pennsylvania: 97.2% white
    Ohio: 99.0% white
    Indiana: 96.3% white
    Illinois: 98.5% white
    Michigan Territory: 99.1% white

    Whole country: 81.9% white

    I hardly think “the nation as a whole” would have had “the racial demographics of Mississippi, Alabama and South Carolina” had there been no immigration.

    I ignored it because it begs the question. If immigrants didn’t adversely effect native birth-rates then the Census data only shows that White ratios would have been lower. The question is immigrant effects on native birth-rates not statistical data for any given period.

    You’re forgetting to factor in the natural increase of immigrant stock present before 1924. Without it, I doubt White proportions would have been as high. (Time now for a “suppositional” statement, huh Mr. Miggles?)

    The Census data is relevant to the topic at hand. It shows that between 1790 and 1830 and between 1930 and 1960, periods with limited immigration, the racial demographics of the United States did not markedly worsen, as you predict would have happened without mass immigration. It is suggestive and makes one wonder what racial demographics would have been had there been little immigration from 1870 to 1930.

  3. “The experts I have cited provide compelling arguments and evidence in support of the hypothesis that immigration contributed to the decline in native birth rates. Given the enormous economic and social effects of mass immigration, it would in fact be highly surprising if it had no effect on native birth rates. Criticizing this or that idea regarding the relationship between immigration and birth rates is a long way from showing that there was and is no relationship between immigration and birth rates.”

    Your “experts” are frauds. The criticism extends beyond “this or that idea.”

    “The cheap labor immigrants from southern and eastern Europe did not settle the frontier. They did not help settle the “sprawling national territory.” Free public land in the West ended about 1880. Southern Europeans got off the steamships that brought them here and went straight into tenements in Northeastern urban areas. These cities were already plenty crowded. The native American was race-replaced in many parts of the Northeast by this mass influx.”

    On average “cheap labor” immigrants were better educated, more productive and less likely to go on welfare than the native born. Also, cheap labor was hardly the preserve of southern Europeans; it existed everywhere in the industrialized world. Further, many founding-stocksters were indentured servants (slaves) or the dregs of the home populace. The state of Georgia started out as a penal colony. Where exactly the southern immigrants first settled is unimportant. The national territory was big enough to absorb them in the longer term.

    “It’s quite possible 19th century immigrants from Northern Europe who helped settle the frontier benefited the founding stock by increasing carrying capacity. The 1880-1920 mass migration from southern Europe, however, did not increase carrying capacity and was harmful to the interests of Americans.”

    It served other legitimate functions besides increasing carrying-capacity (which, by the way, is beside the main point being discussed). It greatly benefited Americans.

    http://books.google.com/books?id=axQOAAAAIAAJ&dq=italian+immigration+to+america&printsec=frontcover&source=in&hl=en&ei=_MUnTMz-N8OBlAfHqrCWBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=11&ved=0CE4Q6AEwCg#v=onepage&q=italian%20immigration%20to%20america&f=false

    “The Census data is relevant to the topic at hand. It shows that between 1790 and 1830 and between 1930 and 1960, periods with limited immigration, the racial demographics of the United States did not markedly worsen, as you predict would have happened without mass immigration. It is suggestive and makes one wonder what racial demographics would have been had there been little immigration from 1870 to 1930.”

    I’ve already responded to this. Between 1930 and 1960 the “white” pop. held steady because of prior immigration and it’s natural increase. The rest is simply bizarre. What may have held between 1790 and 1830 doesn’t necessarily signify that it would always hold. The process of industrialization and urbanization hadn’t begun.One highly unrepresentative 40 year period, nearly 2 centuries old, proves little to nothing.

  4. It greatly benefited Americans.

    Tell us how the mass migration of southern Italians benefited founding stock Americans. I am not interested in Wall Street Journal-type justifications ( http://books.google.com/books?id=yAMVAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA524#v=onepage&q&f=false ) about how immigration benefits “the economy” or the abstract idea-nation of “America,” while being detrimental to the interests of actual Americans. How did the weakening of national identity and unity, multiculturalism, and displacement in significant sections of the country their ancestors built benefit the old Americans?

    I’ve already responded to this. Between 1930 and 1960 the “white” pop. held steady because of prior immigration and it’s natural increase. The rest is simply bizarre. What may have held between 1790 and 1830 doesn’t necessarily signify that it would always hold. The process of industrialization and urbanization hadn’t begun.One highly unrepresentative 40 year period, nearly 2 centuries old, proves little to nothing.

    This is nothing but evasion and rationalization. You simply wish away data that are inconvenient for you.

    On average “cheap labor” immigrants were better educated, more productive and less likely to go on welfare than the native born.

    Madison Grant, The Conquest of a Continent, pp. 223-224

    The period 1860-1930, with which we are now dealing, is characterized by the end of free public land in the West about 1880. It also marked the great development of industries in the North and East, which created a demand for cheap labor, and attracted a mass immigration of non-British and non-Nordic workmen from southern and eastern Europe. This immigration for the most part went to the cities and industrial districts.

    The Southern States, which had not entered upon an industrial expansion before the Civil War, did not welcome immigrants of the low-grade factory type, hence the South has remained characteristically American. One of the strange results of the Civil War has been that while the victorious North sold its birthright of culture, religion, and racial purity for a mess of industrial pottage, the South, though defeated and impoverished, retained its racial inheritance unimpaired.

    Some of the earlier immigrants in this period sought the lands in the West, while they were still to be had. The land hunger having carried most of the energetic, ambitious, and able Nordic immigrants westward, the industrial expansion of New England, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, and of some of the adjacent States resulted in an unfilled demand for low-grade factory labor in the East. The demand was quickly recognized by the steamship companies, which began scouring Europe for immigrants to transport to America.

    The most fertile recruiting ground for this type of humanity was in South Europe, Italy, the Balkan countries, and the provinces of the then Austrian Empire and Russia. Inducements were offered to potential immigrants to come to America. There was no discrimination as to type or quality. Many criminals were rounded up, especially in southern Italy and Sicily, with the connivance if not the actual initiative of their governments.

    Madison Grant, The Conquest of a Continent, p. 232

    The northern Italians are well thought of in the countries to which they have gone. The southern Italians seem to be far inferior in quality. While the country of their origin, Magna Graecia, two thousand five hundred years ago was the source of a large part of the world’s progress in civilization, it is doubtful whether the reader can name a single man produced in that region during the last two thousand years, whose ability or eminence was such as to give him a worthy place in the world’s history.

    Add to this that the United States did not receive even the best of the southern Italian population, but in some instances rather the part that the local authorities were most happy to get rid of, and it is easy to understand how the Italian children in the American schools have shown themselves in almost every test to be a group apart, widely separated from every other white racial group and close to the Negro-Mulatto children in their ability.

    racehist.blogspot.com/2008/11/america-as-it-might-have-been.html
    “America as it might have been”

    What would America be like had it experienced no immigration after the colonial era? Ellsworth Huntington addresses this question in his study of the descendants of New England Puritans and concludes “that in many ways life would have been more satisfactory” [1]. …

    Economic level. “. . . our sample of old New England suggest an average buying power about a quarter greater than that of the native whites of the country as a whole.” The rate of home ownership is 50% higher in the Puritan sample. Huntington expects a reduction in “crime and pauperism” (see below) would save billions of dollars, and suggests individual savings, investments, “and general ability to withstand hard times would presumably be larger”.

    Crime. “. . . our New England sample shows less than half as great a criminal tendency as does the average population [. . .] Far more important than [the economic improvement], however, is the greater safety, freedom, and joy of life that would come under such circumstances. Think of the difference if we knew not only that kidnapping, racketeering, bootlegging, vice, graft, blackmail, murder, and theft were as rare as in England, but also that misrepresentation of investments, unfairly pyramided corporations, and all sorts of financial gold bricks were equally diminished in number.”

    Dependency. “Our study of old colonial names indicates that the descendants of the Puritans are only half as likely to be registered in the lists of social service exchanges as are the inhabitants of the country in general.” …

  5. While I responded to Euro’s claims about the quality of the old stock Americans, it cannot be stressed enough that racial preservation is not contingent upon issues of superiority and inferiority.

    Richard McCulloch writes:

    racialcompact.com/interview.html

    3.3 Answer: The praise of Nordish beauty is, of course, only relevant to those who appreciate it. As a reason or justification for Nordish preservation it is only effective with those who regard Nordish beauty as valuable and important and worth preserving. It is ineffective with those who regard Nordish beauty as being without value or importance. In the end, we will only preserve that which we love, and if the Nordish race is preserved it will be by those who love it, including those who love its beauty. In general, you should not have to justify Nordish preservation on the basis of its beauty (the “esthetic argument”) or intelligence, as the right of a race to exist should be an absolute principle of morality and not be dependent on its qualities, yet its beauty — based on appropriate examples (usually well-known celebrities, although your use of them as examples should not imply that they support the preservation of their race, or any of its other interests, as many, if not most, successful celebrities in the current cultural milieu will probably disappoint you in this regard) — should certainly be mentioned at every opportunity as a reason why it should be valued and loved, and should make clear to any sensible person why its beauty is not interchangeable with, or replaceable by, the beauty of any other race.

    When Mr. Schelter asked me what was so special about the white race that it deserved to exist (see response to previous question) he was playing the justification game, the ancient philosophical challenge to justify one’s existence, or the existence of one’s people, on the grounds that one is superior or special, and therefore worthy to exist, by some external measure. But the only measure that counts is internal, it comes from within us. It is we who make something valuable, meaningful, important or special by regarding it so. All value and meaning is determined and bestowed by us. (We are now told that the existence of the Nordish race has no meaning, value or importance, and that it is wrong, immoral and “racist” for us to think otherwise.) I often think of the justification game as the “Schelter trap,” the false belief that many fall into that the preservation of the Nordish race must be justified by assertions that it is superior to other races, or conversely by claims that other races are inferior, and that without such superiority it does not deserve to exist. This logical trap assumes that superiority is required to be worthy of existence. Ultimately, the right of our race to exist does not depend on it being superior to any other race in any way, whether in beauty, intelligence, morality or creativity, but on the very fact of its existence and the moral presumption in favor of preserving that which exists, and on the fact that there are many millions of people who love and value it and want its continued existence, whose values and wishes should be treated with full consideration and respect. It is they who give its existence value and meaning and it is by their will that it has the right to exist.

    http://www.vdare.com/macdonald/040619_1924_immigration.htm
    In arguing in favor of the 1924 Immigration Act, Representative William Vaile stated:

    “Let me emphasize here that the restrictionists of Congress do not claim that the ‘Nordic’ race, or even the Anglo-Saxon race, is the best race in the world. Let us concede, in all fairness that the Czech is a more sturdy laborer…that the Jew is the best businessman in the world, and that the Italian has…a spiritual exaltation and an artistic creative sense which the Nordic rarely attains. Nordics need not be vain about their own qualifications. It well behooves them to be humble.

    “What we do claim is that the northern European and particularly Anglo-Saxons made this country. Oh, yes; the others helped. But… [t]hey came to this country because it was already made as an Anglo-Saxon commonwealth. They added to it, they often enriched it, but they did not make it, and they have not yet greatly changed it.

    “We are determined that they shall not…It is a good country. It suits us. And what we assert is that we are not going to surrender it to somebody else or allow other people, no matter what their merits, to make it something different. If there is any changing to be done, we will do it ourselves.” [Cong. Rec., April 8, 1924, 5922]

Comments are closed.