PHOENIX RISING YOCKEY SALTER AND THE FUTURE ...4 Francis Parker Yockey, Imperium (self-published,...

PHOENIX RISING: YOCKEY, SALTER, AND

THE FUTURE OF THE WEST1

TED SALLIS __________________________

“. . . only where there are tombs are there resurrections.” — Friedrich Nietzsche

One of the fundamental purposes of my activism is to advance an

integration of two radically different worldviews: the culturalist out-look of Francis Parker Yockey and the biogenetic outlook of Frank Salter. I wish to argue that our ultimate interests are genetic, that the Salterian emphasis on genetic interests has priority over Yockeyian concerns with “High Culture” and “Western Civilization.” That said, these two worldviews need not be in competition. Indeed, they can and should be complementary. YOCKEY AS VISIONARY

Kevin Coogan’s biography of Francis Parker Yockey, Dreamer of the Day,2 takes its title from its epigraph, a quote from T. E. Lawrence’s The Seven Pillars of Wisdom:

All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes, to make it possible.3

This quote perfectly captures the visionary and life-transforming

1 This article was inadvertently omitted from the Special Issue on Francis Parker

Yockey, Volume 10(4) (Winter 2010–2011). 2 Kevin Coogan, Dreamer of the Day: Francis Parker Yockey and the Postwar Fascist

International (Brooklyn: Autonomedia, 1999). 3 T. E. Lawrence, Seven Pillars of Wisdom: A Triumph (Oxford: Oxford University

Press, 1922)

106 The Occidental Quarterly, vol. 11, no. 1, Spring 2011

nature of Yockey’s neo-Spenglerian book Imperium.4 Coogan’s Dreamer of the Day, has a chapter entitled “The Graveyard

of Europe,” which contains the following fascinating quote from Fran-cis Parker Yockey, which was written shortly after WWII, while Yock-ey was in Germany:

I will go from one end to the other of my beloved Europe; I know well that I shall be going only to a churchyard, but I know too, that the churchyard is dear, very dear, to me. Beloved dead lie buried there. Every stone over them, every bomb-crater con-taining the pulverized bones of these dead, tells of a life once so ardently lived, so passionate a belief in its own achievements, its own truth, its own battles, its own knowledge, that I know, even now I know, that I shall fall down and kiss these stones, these endless ruins, this blood-drenched, sacred earth, and weep. But I surely also know that then, despite a convulsive rage at the perpetrators of this crime, I will again stand erect over this Eu-ropean graveyard and swear a solemn oath that to my last breath I will fight tooth and nail against those who attempted, in vain to be sure, to destroy the cradle of our Western Culture, with its unmatched accomplishments, with its deeds unique in the annals of Humanity. Thus I, Francis Yockey, do solemnly swear!5 Well said, Mr. Yockey. And all true, as well. Except, of course, that

today, the destruction of the West is being primarily achieved through invading alien migrants and demographic change, rather than through bombs and tanks

Certainly, Yockey could be inspiring, as he wrote in The Enemy of Europe:

Europe is equal to its historic task. Against the anti-spiritual, an-tiheroic “ideals” of America-Jewry, Europe pits its metaphysical ideas, its faith in its Destiny, its ethical principles, its heroism. Fearlessly, Europe falls in for battle, knowing it is armed with

4 Francis Parker Yockey, Imperium (self-published, 1948; Costa Mesa, CA: Noon-

tide Press 1962). 5 Coogan, Dreamer of the Day, 157.

Sallis, “Phoenix Rising: Yockey, Salter, and the Future of the West”

107

the mightiest weapon ever forged by History: the superpersonal Destiny of the European organism. Our European Mission is to create the Culture-State-Nation-Imperium of the West, and thereby we shall perform such deeds, accomplish such works, and so transform our world that our distant posterity, when they behold the remains of our buildings and ramparts, will tell their grandchildren that on the soil of Europe once dwelt a tribe of gods.6

BIOLOGICAL RACE, CULTURAL ORGANICISM

After reading Imperium, I was struck by two things: Yockey’s in-spiring vision, and his absolute wrong-headedness on many issues of importance. I started to formulate my objections, and then, by chance, discovered that Dr. Revilo Oliver, in his essay “The Enemy of Our En-emies,”7 had already laid out similar criticisms—and had done so many years before I had ever heard the name Francis Parker Yockey. Thus, I give full credit to Dr. Oliver for the fundamentals of my own critique of Yockey; I am just summarizing and paraphrasing his rele-vant arguments, adding some of my own, and then fitting it all into the big picture. Of course, any critique of Yockey leads one to Speng-ler, upon whose work Yockey based his own.

Yockey disparaged and diminished the importance of biological (“vertical”) race.8 To him, race was mainly a spiritual thing (“horizon-tal race”); it was what one “felt,” how one acted, the “racial beat,” ra-ther than any objectively defined biological characteristics. In addi-tion, Yockey’s attacks on Darwinism are embarrassing to read, and one can only cringe when Yockey states that carnivores eat meat only as a matter of choice and inner imperative; they can just as easily sur-vive on plants. One could test this theory by feeding a zoo lion with grass and hay and observe the results. But since big cats are difficult to come by for zoos, I assume zookeepers would not wish to sentence their animals to slow starvation and certain death.

Essentially, much of what Yockey said about race and biology is

6 Francis Parker Yockey, The Enemy of Europe (Reedy, WV: Liberty Bell Publica-tions, 1981).

http://www.jrbooksonline.com/PDF_Books/EnemyOfEurope.pdf 7 Revilo Oliver, The Enemy of Europe/The Enemy of Our Enemies (Reedy, WV: Liber-

ty Bell Publications, 2003). 8 Yockey, Imperium, 273–327.


just plain wrong. Whether these ideas had any connection—as Yock-ey’s biographer Coogan suggests9—to possible Jewish ancestry in Yockey’s familial background and to Yockey’s knowledge of said an-cestry, is open to question.

Dr. Oliver observed that while dismissing the biological realities of race, Yockey also asserted the belief that a “High Culture” is a biologi-cal organism. Thus, biology is ignored where it should be stressed, and stressed where it does not exist. This was, of course, Yockey’s at-tempt to justify his belief in Spengler’s view of High Cultures as hav-ing definite life stages and life spans. To simplify: “Spring” is the birth and flowering of the “Culture.” “Summer” is its high point. “Au-tumn” follows with cultural decline, the growth of “Civilization” and its emphasis on materialism rather than faith, and the formation of Empire. Finally, comes the “Winter” of civilization, when the cultural organism dies and a rebirth of High Culture is no more possible than the resurrection of a dead man. Yockey also emphasized the afore-mentioned transition from Culture to Civilization, which can be viewed as occurring in “late Summer” or at the “Summer/Autumn” transition. This transition is represented by Napoleon in modern Western history and by Alexander in the Classical world. More details of this worldview can be obtained from Imperium. The point to be stressed here is the belief in the rock-solid inevitability of every civili-zation’s death, with a fixed “life-span” not much different from that of those other High Cultures that came before.

Thus, essential to Yockeyan and Spenglerian “pessimism” is the idea that the death of the culture/civilization is inevitable, and must be accepted stoically. No hope for the future? Too bad. Any objections to this view are considered “cowardice.” One needs to accept one’s place in the historical cycle and just deal with it. Yockey/Spengler saw the West as in the Autumn period; according to Yockey, an Axis victory in WW II would have led to the “inevitable” Imperium, but somehow this was derailed. However, according to Yockey, this was a temporary setback, and we need to work to make the Imperium a re-ality.

However, looking around at our current situation, it seems to me we already are clearly in the “Winter of the West”; truly, it is “the winter of our discontent.” If we are to believe this view of history,

9 Coogan, Dreamer of the Day, 49–50.


109

then Western Culture was prematurely killed off by the World Wars just as the Spanish conquest prematurely ended the High Culture (if you can call it that) of Meso-America. Therefore, Yockey’s belief that the Imperium was yet to come was just so much wishful thinking.

Now, part and parcel of the justification of this pessimistic view of history is the premise that Classical Culture and modern Western Cul-ture are completely different, with no connection whatsoever—a view made possible by the convenient dismissal of the relevance of biologi-cal race. We may say that both cultures were made by European peo-ples on European soil, but to Yockey the “cultural souls” of the popu-lations are different; there is no connection whatsoever. The rationale is obvious: if a connection can be made between the Classical and modern Western civilizations, then the idea of a civilization’s perma-nent death does not hold; rebirth is possible and thus optimism is not so “cowardly” after all. And, since both Spengler and Yockey abso-lutely insist on the “heroically stoic” pessimistic view of history, any hint of optimism must be refuted or ignored.

Dr. Oliver pondered whether the differences that exist between the Classical and modern Western civilizations are truly fundamental, or merely epiphenomenal and secondary. I believe the latter. When one reads Cicero, Marcus Aurelius, or Plato, one gets the sense that this is someone from our culture, from our civilization, not alien as would be Confucius, Koran, the Talmud, or the Egyptian Book of the Dead. Ob-viously, there are differences, as would be expected after two thou-sand or more years of intervening history. But the differences are of the outward forms, not of—as Yockey himself may have put it—“the inner soul of the High Culture.”

Consider also the rise of modern China, another civilization which was said to be long dead. True enough, the Chinese of today are not undergoing any cultural revival; they seem to have gone straight from the dead of Winter into late Summer. Regardless, their rise to world prominence—once again—is obvious. As long as a people exists, and that people have ability, it would seem that permanent civilizational death is not inevitable. My, and Oliver’s, view is that either (a) the Classical and Western civilizations are one, with ups and downs (the same for the Chinese?), and thus, as long as the peoples of the West survive, another upturn is possible, or (b) the cultures are indeed dif-ferent, but this merely demonstrates that some groups are capable of creating multiple civilizations, so that the exhaustion of our present one need not mean our permanent demise. After all, the Chinese


aside, doesn’t Spring usually follow Winter? Rather than stoically enduring Winter, shouldn’t we turn our faces

toward the warm winds of Spring? Our revival would mean, I think, first, saving ourselves physically,

and secondly, a cultural and spiritual revival, retaining the best of the past, jettisoning those memes that have proven destructive and devel-oping new memes as a focal point around which to revive our long-standing multi-component culture (assuming ancient-modern conti-nuity) or (assuming discontinuity) building a new civilization on the ruins of the old.

Some years ago, there was a debate about Christianity and race in American Renaissance. In an essay which was replying to the original pro-Christianity piece, the author stated that Whites need a new transcendent idea to replace Christianity, to give Western man a focal point to rally around. He, unfortunately, had no suggestions as to what that could be. I say “unfortunately,” because I believe he is cor-rect. If we already are in the Winter of the West, we need to ponder whether the noticeable exhaustion of some of our civilization’s found-ing tenets, particularly spiritual belief, translates into a need to jettison the exhausted belief system. Or do we try and reform it, as pro-Christian racialists tell us to do? Or, do we try both, and see which di-rection yields the most productive results? Or, do we engage solely in a “secular” form of “rebirth nationalism,” and attempt to remake our-selves in a Christian-independent progressive image? Or, should we accept that Christianity has been an important part of our culture, but make that culture, and the reborn one to come, the focal point of our belief system, rather than Christianity itself? Or something else entire-ly?

There are many questions and few answers as of yet, but we do need to be asking the right questions.

SALTERISM AND ITS LIMITS

I wish to argue that Frank Salter’s account of “ethnic genetic inter-ests”10 can supply the biological dimension that Yockey sorely lacks. Could Ethnic Genetic Interests (EGI) somehow form part of the new set of values we embrace? Perhaps. On the other hand, few national-

10 Frank K. Salter, On Genetic Interests, Family, Ethny, and Humanity in an Age of

Mass Migration, 1st ed. (Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main, 2003; 2nd edition: New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 2003).


111

ists seem to even understand or are interested in EGI, much less make it an integral part of their belief systems. Perhaps talk of “genetic in-terests” and “genetic structures” and “gene frequencies” is too “ster-ile”11 to inspire the sort of fighting spirit needed to save, reinvent, and/or rebuild the West (in either a revitalized or fresh version).

Salter warns us not to expect perfection in the pursuit of our genet-ic interests; we do what we can in the real world, and we try to avoid manifestly maladaptive options. I would add that we need to carefully consider, for various scenarios, what the net effects on genetic inter-ests are; pursuit of ever narrower gains of EGI may backfire and result in net losses.

It is important to understand all the ramifications of EGI, and to do that one must understand the distinction between proximate psycho-logical mechanisms and ultimate genetic interests. Proximate psycho-logical mechanisms refer to psychological feelings, attitudes, or other motivational states. Proximate mechanisms contrast with ultimate in-terests construed as biological fitness. Typically, proximate mecha-nisms result in achieving the ultimate evolutionary goal of increasing biological fitness. For example, male wolves are motivated to achieve dominance within their pack. This motivation is a proximate psycho-logical mechanism that leads them to attempt to become dominant and thereby maximize their reproductive success — the ultimate evo-lutionary interest. But the wolf has no understanding that his proxi-mate striving for dominance in fact was designed by natural selection to maximize his reproductive success.

In the broader sense, proximate mechanisms can include political motivation to preserve and defend what Yockey termed “High Cul-ture” (i.e., culture, cultural artifacts, and civilization). The point here is that Yockey’s concern with High Culture may be an effective proxi-mate motivating mechanism for many Westerners that would in fact lead them to achieve the ultimate goal of securing the ethnic genetic interests. This is so whether or not they are aware that in seeking to defend High Culture they are in fact securing the ultimate evolution-ary goal of advancing their EGI.

The following example illustrates some of the complexities of thinking in terms of EBI. Immigration restrictionist Peter Brimelow, of

11 Michael O’Meara, “The Myth of Our Regeneration.” The Occidental Quarterly

Online (June 19, 2009). http://www.toqonline.com/blog/the-myth-of-our-regeneration/


English descent, is undoubtedly genetically closer to pro-immigration Republicans like George W. Bush and John McCain than to Tom Tan-credo; yet the net effect of Tancredo, an Italian-American immigration restrictionist, on Brimelow’s genetic interests is more positive than that of open-borders politicians closer to Brimelow’s ethnic origins.

Alternatively, consider the possibility that a future, very finely grained, autosomal genetic analysis would show a clear distinctive-ness between East and West England. A very narrow pursuit of ethnic genetic interest may suggest that the East and West English separate to form new ethnostates and that members of those groups should consider themselves distinct ethnies, not intermarry, etc. However, the costs of such a scenario need to be balanced against the relatively small extra gain in raw genetic interest obtained. This pursuit of nar-row regional intra-national genetic interest would result in a disrup-tion of the organic solidarity of the English nation and people; if this disruption makes the English—all of them, East and West—more vul-nerable to foreign interests and intrusive demographic expansions, then the costs would outweigh the benefits. Likewise, the legitimate pursuit of intra-Western genetic interests and particularisms needs to be balanced against the possible costs incurred by not presenting a united front against other civilizational concentrations of genetic in-terest.

Yockey’s words (italicized emphasis in the original) in Imperium are relevant here:

The touching of this racial-frontier case of the Negro, however, shows to Europe a very important fact—that race-difference be-tween White men, which means Western men, is vanishingly small in view of their common mission of actualizing a High Culture. In Eu-rope, where hitherto the race difference between, say, French-man and Italian has been magnified to great dimensions, there has been no sufficient reminder of the race-differences outside the Western Civilization. Adequate instruction along this line would apparently have to take the form of occupation of all Eu-rope, instead of only part of it, by Negroes from America and Africa, by Mongols and Turkestan! from the Russian Empire . . . If any Westerner thinks that the barbarian makes nice distinc-tions between the former nations of the West, he is incapable of


113

understanding the feelings of populations outside a High Cul-ture toward that culture . . .

. . . But the greatest opposition of all has not yet been named, the conflict which will take up all the others into itself. This is the battle of the Idea of the Unity of the West against the nationalism of the 19th century. Here stand opposed the ideas of Empire and petty-stateism, large-space thinking and political provincialism. Here find themselves opposed the miserable collection of yes-terday-patriots and the custodians of the Future. The yesterday-nationalists are nothing but the puppets of the extra-European forces who conquer Europe by dividing it. To the enemies of Europe, there must be no rapprochement, no understanding, no union of the old units of Europe into a new unit, capable of car-rying on 20th century politics . . .

. . . Against a united Europe, they could never have made their way in, and only against a divided Europe can they maintain themselves. Split! divide! distinguish!—this is the technique of conquest. Resurrect old ideas, old slogans, now quite dead, in the battle to turn European against European.

TOWARD A SYNTHESIS Genetic interests are vitally important—the ultimate interests. But,

Salter tells us that whatever prods people to defend their genetic in-terests is adaptive, even if the stimulus is a proximate interest (e.g., a desire for power as opposed to a conscious interest in having biologi-cal descendants; this assumes that following such a proximate interest does not lead to genetically maladaptive choices). Perhaps a biologi-cally-sound and racially aware Yockeyism can do the trick? That is, a Yockeyism stripped of Spenglerian pessimism and inevitability, in-cluding the Eastern Europeans (whom Yockey eschewed), and geared to a new beginning, with Whites as a “young people,” as I believe Faye terms it—rather than as a stoically doomed population.

Can we fuse Yockey and Salter and somehow come away with something better than each alone? Salter tells us what our ultimate in-terests are and Yockey tells us, perhaps, how we can defend those in-terests from other civilizational blocs who wish to destroy our bloc, taking our genetic interests to destruction with everything else. Salter-ism is the foundation; a reformed Yockeyism can be the edifice tower-


ing above that sturdy foundation. Yockey’s major weakness is that he not only ignores the importance

of biological race, but actually attacks the materialist basis of race it-self. Stripped of a firm foundation of biology, Yockeyan culturalism could, in theory, degenerate into a nationalist version of “constitu-tional patriotism/citizenism,” in which commitment to a “High Cul-ture” trumps biological preservationism, and genetic extinction is ac-ceptable as long as “the High Culture” remains. This in clearly unac-ceptable.

On the other hand, Salterism has two weaknesses. First, a call to “preserve our distinctive genetic information” is unlikely to motivate most Western individuals to defend their genetic interests against the titanic forces arrayed against them. It almost certainly will not moti-vate the masses, who, as Michael O’Meara rightfully points out, are always induced to act by “myths” that encompass a cohesive worldview.12 Even rational activists can often become more motivated by these “myths” (which may of course constitute objective facts to a considerable degree) than to a pure empiricism. Thus, the “myth” of Yockeyan “High Culture” may be needed to motivate the defense of rational Salterian EGI.

Second, genetic interests are based upon differences and distinc-tions, and all individuals (except identical twins, if we ignore certain subtleties) differ in their genetic information. Therefore, the potential exists for an unrestrained focus on genetic interests to itself degener-ate into a maladaptive genetic atomization—with the natural organic solidarity of particular ethnies, and of the West as a whole, disinte-grating under an ever more fine series of biological divisions.

That negative outcome is clearly not what Dr. Salter has in mind, and in fact he proposes the opposite, that major civilizational blocs—including “the West”—could possibly serve as bulwarks to defend broad sets of genetic interests. But, I am equally sure that Yockey would not have supported his ideas being used to racially replace Eu-ropeans by aliens who embrace the Western High Culture.

It is not the intent of the creator of the ideas that is the problem here, the problem instead is that a narrowly focused pursuit of either hyper-culturalism or hyper-biologism, without proper counter-balance, could over time collapse into maladaptive strategies—a too inclusive culturalism or a too exclusive biologism.

12 O’Meara, “The Myth of Our Regeneration,” Ibid.


115

A fusion is required. What then follows? How can the phoenix of a revitalized European Man emerge from

the ashes of the West? Yockeyan thought can be used instrumentally to assist in the pur-

suit of genetic interests. Of course, it goes without saying that proxi-mate concerns such as “High Culture” and “Western Civilization” are of value in and of themselves, even independent of whatever positive effects they have as motivators for the preservation of ultimate (genet-ic) interests. While genetic interests are the most important thing, they are certainly not the only thing of importance.

A Yockeyan interest in “the West” and the “Unity of the Western High Culture" may not perfectly coincide, on casual inspection, with a pursuit of maximized genetic interest. However, balancing costs and benefits, and looking toward net effects on genetic interest, a balance of larger and smaller interest spheres—represented, for example, by Norman Lowell’s “Imperium” and “Dominion” distinctions13—may result in the optimized practical preservation of genetic interest in real world global politics.

METHODS FOR INTEGRATING SALTER AND YOCKEY

Our primary aim is the defense of our genetic (ultimate) interests. Secondarily to that, we wish to defend proximate interests, the most important of which is Yockeyan “(Faustian) High Culture,” i.e., West-ern Civilization. However, when formulating actual strategies for this defense, given what we know of human nature, the proximate issues, for most people, need to be given equal weight to the ultimate. Please note: I am only talking about instrumentalism here. I am not saying that proximate issues actually are of equal footing with the ultimate, nor am I even saying that we should overtly state any such equality of interests, for “effect.”

No, we should be honest and state, when and where appropriate, that the ultimate takes precedence over the proximate. On the other hand, when engaged in “politics,” we should give both ultimate and

13 Tomislav Sunic interview of Normal Lowell on the Reason Radio Network

(August 3, 2010). http://reasonradionetwork.com/20100803/the-sunic-journal-interview-with-

norman-lowell-part-2-of-2


high-level (e.g., civilizational, “High Culture”) proximate interests equal weight in motivational rhetoric.

My experience has been that even some preservationist racialists and nationalists are unmoved by explicitly Salterian calls for a defense of genetic interests. Given the persistence of what many would call “the Yockey cult,” it would seem that a work such as Imperium, even given its many faults, may provide to some activists a greater inspira-tional and motivational impetus than does, say, On Genetic Interests.

I wish it were otherwise, and I will continue to promote Salter’s work and attempt to elevate that work to the level where it can and will be motivational and inspirational. However, even if that can be achieved, certain proximate interests will continue to exhibit the raw power to impel individuals to defend not only those proximate inter-ests themselves but the ultimate interests that are carried along with them.

These proximate interests include particular civilizational “myths” that have the power to bind us together as Westerners, as Europeans, as “Men of Destiny” ready and willing to struggle for both the ulti-mate and the proximate. Therefore, if we wish to defend ultimate in-terests we must invoke the proximate as well. That the proximate in-terests themselves have important (albeit secondary) value in and of themselves is “icing on the cake,” making promotion of these proxi-mate interests even more attractive. The key—the crucial point—is that proximate interests must be promoted in such a way so as to: (a) not conflict with ultimate interests, and (b) not obscure the importance of the ultimate. We must always strive to include mention of ultimate interests whenever and wherever possible, insofar as is practical.

One way of achieving this is to constantly stress the inter-relationship and co-dependence of the ultimate and the proximate. Contra Yockey and his anti-biological and anti-racial materialist views on “High Cultures,” we must forcefully argue that the proximate in-terests we so value (e.g., “the West”) are the extended phenotypes of specifically European genetic structures. Thus, an appeal to “defend-ing the West,” or “a rebirth of a new Western High Culture,” or “men of the West, Awake!,” should not be construed as an aracial ac-ceptance of any people or peoples willing to “assimilate” into the West — Europe as a proposition culture. Instead, such appeal should be viewed as a specific reference to the European-Western “biocultur-al organism” — in which genes and culture are inseparable.


117

We can also mention the reverse: that culture can influence gene frequencies via selective pressures. Therefore, not only is our culture the result of our genes, but our genes are the result of our culture. The two are intimately intertwined, a further refutation of Yockey’s anti-biological materialism, and an additional tool to be utilized in practi-cally merging Salterian and Yockeyan thought.

Needless to say, other proximate interests, such as European phe-notypes and behavioral traits, can be even more directly tied into a defense of European genetics, given the close and very direct relation-ship between genes and proximate interests in those cases.

We also need to explain how Salter’s fundamental insights in no way diminish the proper appreciation of proximate interests such as “The West,” while, at the same time, pointing out that Yockey’s in-spiring vision was incomplete in that it did not recognize the funda-mental importance of biological race. And, it must be stressed that it is possible to use defense of one set of interests to strengthen the defense of the other: a defense of The West can, and should, lead to a defense of European genetic interests; a defense of those genetic interests should lead to promotion of our most valued proximate concerns. These issues should fit together in a fully integrated fashion. The whole will thus be greater than the sum of the parts. THE GRAVEYARD OF EUROPE

We now come full circle, back to the quotes at the beginning of this essay. Yockey’s reference to the “European graveyard” can now be taken quite literally, since it are the European peoples themselves, and their distinctive genetic information, who are dying, not only Western civilization. The graveyard is biological as well as cultural, and our defense of the West must include the idea of racial materialism, even if Yockey himself emphasized “spiritual” and “horizontal” race as opposed to biological, “vertical” race. We are under no obligation to internalize and accept all of Yockey’s opinions on that particular mat-ter, since we know better, and have the firm foundation of Salterian genetic interests to point us toward our ultimate interests. But this re-jection of only one aspect of Yockeyism by no means obligates us to ignore the greater truths of his work, and the utility of his writings and ideas to our cause. If we want to direct Europeans away from their graveyard and toward life, a biologically informed Yockeyism will be useful.


And Nietzsche? His quote should give us hope. If we wish a resur-rection of the West and its peoples, we must calmly deal with the cur-rent crisis and focus on what needs be done to move forward to a new beginning. It’s not possible to turn back the clock and fall back into the past; it is possible, indeed necessary, to look forward to the future.

The Graveyard of Europe must become the Renaissance of the West, the Rebirth of People and Civilization. And we need to use both the Salterian and Yockeyan tools to achieve this goal.

Date post:	30-Mar-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	5 times
Download:	0 times

PHOENIX RISING YOCKEY SALTER AND THE FUTURE ...4 Francis Parker Yockey, Imperium (self-published,...

Documents