By Francis Parker Yockey
[“The Enemy of Europe: The Enemy of Our Enemies” (1948, chapters on Japan and Russia revised in 1950s)]
“If Russia should occupy Europe and attempt to imitate the American policy of encouraging petty-statism, to divide arid conquer, it would fail utterly. America has been successful in that policy only because of its access to the European Michel-stratum with its lickspittle churchills. The Michel yearns for American capitalism and liberalism, but trembles with abysmal cowardice before Russian barbarism. The Communist Parties would be of slight use to Russia in any attempt to set up puppet-governments on the model of America’s churchill-regimes. The leadership and membership of these Communist Parties is composed of inferior European types, not of pan-Slavs or religious Russian nationalists. The barbarian, immature and unversed in the subtleties of the art of Politics, trusts only those who are of his own religion, and the true religion of the Russian is not Marxism, but Russia. The first victims of a Russian occupation of Europe would be the European Communists, who would be liquidated at the slightest suspicion of disloyalty. Their “Communism” stems from books, their pro-Russian sentiments from hatred and envy of their European surroundings, their Utopian orthodoxy about Russia comes from a lack of realism and an exaggerated intellectualism. The Russian knout and the Russian revolver would soon teach them what they have not learnt from their books, would shatter their Utopian ideals and give their hatred a new focus. […]
The fact that Russia used the fiction of “independent” states in its post-War occupation of Eastern Europe offers no criterion for its policy in the event it should occupy Western Europe, the Europe that is synonymous with the Western Culture. In any case, simply the presence of the barbarian, let alone his policy, would dissolve the Inner Enemy of Europe, the Michel-stratum, and thus liberate all creative forces within Europe from the tyranny of the Past. […]
Should Russia attempt to terrorize Europe, it would summon forth in the European People the will to counter-terror. Faced with the barbarian, all Europeans, even the simplest minded liberals, would learn the necessity of inner firmness, of a stern will, the virtues of Command and Obedience, for these alone could force the barbarian to accept demands, or else retreat to his tundras and steppes. All Europeans would realize that not parliamentary babble, class-war, capitalism, and elections, but only Authority, the Will-to-Power, and finally, the military spirit could ever drive out the barbarian. The expulsion of England’s army of 40,000 men by a few hundred Irish guerrilla- fighters in the years 1916-1923 would be repeated on a larger scale. In a great, unrelenting War of Liberation, Europe would unite itself, and cast the barbarian back to the distant plains of Asia.
To conclude: Between the two powers in the Concert of Bolshevism that dominates this Second Interbellum-Period, there are numerous similarities, some profound, others superficial. Neither of the two is an organism with a positive Mission; neither of the two exhibits the inner qualities that alone can found and preserve a world-system; neither of them has or can have an aristocracy; in short, neither of them is the seat of a High Culture. In both the element of Landscape predominates over the cultural component in every stratum of the human material; both make use of an antiquated Western ideology that is completely ineffectual in the world-situation of the Age of Absolute Politics; both have not the faintest inkling of the Imperium-Idea, the necessary fulfillment whereof is the total historical meaning of this Age; both believe it possible to attain a static world-order in which History would have ceased to exist, and this belief makes both dangerously relentless; both believe Europe can be destroyed as a politico-Cultural unit, and degraded to the level of China.
Thus, from the European standpoint, there is in a Cultural sense no choice between these two powers, for both represent fundamental opposites to European Cultural imperatives.”