The Enemy of America

For better or for worse, the title of this post could very easily have been “The Enemy of the World.” The combined fate of both Europe and America are, in many ways, inseparable. “The Enemy of Europe,” Published in 1953, is where Francis Parker Yockey asserted that Europe should view the Soviet Union as the lesser of two evils amid the Cold War – what he called World War Three.

“America can only divide Europe – whatever its policy
Russia can only unite Europe – whatever its policy”
Francis Parker Yockey, “The Enemy of Europe”

It is not my purpose here to summarize his arguments in their entirety. Suffice it to say, that the conclusions he came to in the early 1950s have essentially resulted in what we see today. Both the visible and invisible wars the world finds itself in now can be traced back to the dangers he warned of. This has largely revealed itself in a particular form of globalism, and the ideological war being waged is between one world governance and national sovereignty – both in a physical sense and a spiritual one. This war has been conducted over the last few decades, but the last several years have brought us to a crossroads, and the direction the world takes will almost assuredly be decided within our lifetimes.

Nietzsche foresaw an age of intense reflection that would set in after “the terrible earthquake.” But he warned us that it would be an age of “new questions,” eternal questions as he wished them heroically understood[…]
Arthur Moeller Van Den Bruck, “Germany’s Third Empire” -1923

If what Nietzsche saw was fulfilled in the Second World War – and if history is cyclical – then the same formula can be used to understand our own times. I, for one, am inclined to follow his lead. Every great movement, by necessity, would require self-reflection; altering the status quo is an upheaval of deeply rooted beliefs and/or policy, resulting in a significant societal disturbance; finally, our world is composed of eternal truths, so questions to understand those truths would also be eternal.

Intense Reflection

The effects of Globalism are obvious. Western countries have abandoned their borders and welcomed the whole of humanity into the confines of their limited nation, and the results have spoken for themselves. As a consequence, within the last two years, we have seen France and Ireland on fire (quite literally) as a direct response to the clash of incompatible cultures. In a twist of irony, today’s Europe acts (politically) as one unit, as Yockey had hoped, yet they have divorced from themselves and do not act in their own best interest. It is in this way that they are divided. Just as Yockey theorized that Britain ultimately acted against its own interest by fighting the Axis in WW2, the European Union is acting against the interests of Europe today.

The “inner-America” that Yockey feared has taken root in Europe, and our own unique form of Liberal (“Jewish”) Bolshevism has corrupted her politics to the point where the continent is hardly recognizable. What was once a bastion of Western Civilization and various cultures has been pushed to the outer fringes of society. When only various explicitly pro-White organizations advocate their historical and national values (and damned as a result), their way of life is not long for this world. The attack does not come from the foreign influence alone but also from within. The self-loathing, a necessary conclusion of the rampant egalitarianism and communism, has produced a native population that believes self-preservation is selfish and hateful. While these sentiments are certainly widespread, it is also clear that they stem largely from the Left. The recent protests and marches from Nationalist European organizations are a testament to the claim this death is not voluntary. The same can be seen happening in the United States, albeit we are in an earlier stage. This is not, however, to diminish the urgency of the situation. Having emerged victorious from the Cold War, our influence in the world is preeminent, and the fate of the globe is directly linked to the fate of America. The predictions made by Yockey have come true, and the Age of “Absolute Politics” has given way to the Age of Global Politics. With this new age comes a new set of considerations but the same warnings. The distinct nature of the political differences from then and now make these considerations slightly complicated. Countries no longer ask, “What is best for our nation and our people?” when drafting policy. Instead, they ask, “What effect will this have on the world?” “Will another nation suffer from our gain?” and “What is best for the international community?” (disregarding what is best for themselves). Because of the position of power experienced by our nation, in order to understand the trajectory or geopolitics, you do not need to look much farther than our own borders. With few exceptions, nations won’t dare make a major alteration to the status quo apart from a blessing from the United States Government.

During the last century, ideologies were drawn along national borders. Today, however, the conflict is between each individual country and all the countries. In a way, every nation in the world is united against the world. With the enemy being simultaneously internal and external, the question of what manner of engagement to adopt becomes increasingly muddy which also makes identifying the enemy tricky because there are both ideological and physical opponents. Is a cold war – one of battling ideas – the proper course of action? Or is it more prudent to engage in aggressive politics to root out the parasite by force? This is, of course, a trick question to a certain degree. Both are necessary, and the players worthy of targeting are becoming increasingly apparent. But the answer remains elusive. Does one precede the other? Will the second be corrected as a direct consequence of solving the first? Is violence necessary? Is it inevitable? Should it be proactive? Against whom? In modern politics, there are those who act indirectly and those who are the face. Is it more important to put the weapon out of commission or the person using the weapon? Furthermore, it would be unwise to remove the existing regime without one to replace it. Where a void exists, it will be filled by whatever faces the least resistance. Overthrowing the corruption of liberalism only for it to be replaced by Sharia Law would be a colossal failure.

The Terrible Earthquake

On the question of identifying an enemy that can be fought directly, the most recent conflict between Russia and Ukraine has offered something tangible. The role that Russia is playing through this conflict is akin to that of Germany and Italy in the Second World War. Right-wing Nationalists rightly and overwhelmingly favor them over Ukraine – which, incidentally, has the support of both the Left and Right-wing Globalists. Others have outlined the case for this and provided the history of why this is so. I will not repeat them here, but for an introduction, I would recommend this episode by Martyrmade. What is relevant, however, is that the United States has, for many years, continued to export Bolshevism to other countries, and where it is not received, invasion is soon to follow. One need only look to the last 20 years of our policy regarding the Middle East.

As admirable as Russia’s resistance to the globalist agenda may be, my concern is this: in the event of a Russian victory over Ukraine, what then? Zelensky is the conduit, not the source, and an armistice between the two nations would signal the beginning of the war, not the end. Ukraine’s defeat may very well bring an end to combat (for the moment), but it would not bring an end to the issue that led to the violence in the first place, and unless an agreement is established between Putin and NATO, further violence will be inevitable. Tragically, considering that Ukraine is an honorary member and not an official one, I do not foresee such a thing taking place. I fear, then, that as far as Russia is concerned, this is the beginning. Which begs the question: what is the end? A victory for NATO is obvious: the annihilation of Russia. A Russian victory is much more difficult to imagine. Apart from a preemptive treaty, in order to secure her survival, she would have to declare war on the entirety of NATO. Such a victory would likely require that they successfully invade and conquer not only the whole of Europe but also the United States. Both as an American who loves my country and one who sympathizes with Russia’s plight, I do not wish to see any engagement between our nations, least of all to see an invasion of my homeland – even if such a thing were possible. Russia may very well be on the path of a prolonged death.

There is a silver lining. The international committees have lost favor among national populations, and what is taking place is contrary to what the people want. Already, in key nations, we can see the rumblings of resistance. For this reason, in the case that either NATO or Russia would declare war on the other, there is the possibility that several countries likely would not, but perhaps, even could not participate, but instead negotiate private treaties between their own governments. Between the Russian/Ukrainian war and the Israeli/Palestinian war, there has been some discussion of whether there will be a third World War. I do not think that is likely. What I believe to be more probable is a series of isolated, independent revolutions. In recent elections and political action, Poland, Italy, and Argentina have shown a shift towards Nationalist tendencies. Unrest in France and Ireland indicates a likely domestic conflict should their governments join a war against Russia (I can also foresee Sweden following suit). I am not optimistic that the people of Germany or Britain will do anything of the sort, as they have not shown any signs of resisting the globalization of their land. As for the United States, that depends entirely on this next election. The aftermath of whichever path is followed may not be immediately obvious, but once set in motion, it is inevitable. It is quite possible, then, that our course of action has already been decided.

The Eternal Questions

One large contributing factor to the downfall of Europe – experienced most notably by Great Britain – as a consequence of the Second World War was the importing of foreign identities, which marked a contrast to their history of exporting national identity.¹ Given its international stance, America finds herself in the same situation, and as things stand, our own politics are indispensable from the global theater. Being tethered together in such a way, we face two options: either we embrace the convergence and become the Singapore of the West, or we reestablish a National identity and distance ourselves from the 5th International. This would not require a policy of isolationism per se but would necessitate an understanding that certain things are exclusionary to the United States personality. This would, of course, require a rediscovery of what that personality is.

There are, I believe, two primary questions that concern us here: 1) What is a nation? and 2) What is that nation’s responsibility? The second question can be applied in multiple contexts. Responsibility varies based on a shared continent, a shared civilization, shared alliances, and a shared existence. The United States, sharing borders with Canada and Mexico, shares a particular relationship with them that we do not have with any other country; our shared civilization provides an inherent brotherhood with Europe; bonds between countries bound by political agreements offer its own type of relationship; and in the final case, in what ways does a country have an obligation to the world? These are not questions that I will attempt to answer, but they are worth thinking about. In order to come to any conclusion and make any policy decision, they must be thought about.

What determines a nation determines its responsibility and its enemies. Is “Nation” defined by religion, race, culture, history, or perhaps some combination of them all? Once this is concluded, finding the enemy is simple enough. The persons who wish to impose either multiple or separate religions displace the founding or existing race, destroy the culture, and remove or alter history. These are the people that need to be dispelled and removed from positions of influence and authority. What, then, is the obligation that Nations have to one another in their attempt to secure themselves in these qualities? Again, this is not something that I am able to answer, certainly not here. With that said, each country has its own unique character, and some also are in a position to help others more than others. The danger here is two-fold. The first is assisting without going so far as to influence. Doing so would infringe on the receiving nation’s autonomy, which is counter to this entire thought experiment. The second is the object and manner of assistance. The greatest challenge would be in a religious sense. Does a Christian Nation have any right to help a Jewish Nation, for example? Considering the two religions are antithetical to one another – if this is how a Nation primarily defines itself – what possible alliance can exist between them? If the first is to engage in helping the second secure its religious status, which religion is being secured? If the host religion is being strengthened, then the helping nation is not only distancing the other politically – even propping it up as a potential antagonist – but endangering the eternal souls of every one of its citizens.

The very nature of such alliances is strange. There is a deep, natural connection between the United States and Europe because of our shared religion, civilization, ancestry, and history. Any political bond among our nations would be organic. Alliances between nations that share nothing in common, on the other hand, must be temporary – or else forced – as they are held together by nothing more than pieces of paper and benefits that are expedient at the time.

Concluding Concerns

The closest anecdote to interpreting our current predicament is probably World War One. International organizations and the globalization of the world are, in a way, a modern version of past Empires. Britain, Germany, Russia, France, and Austria-Hungary were the largest empires that existed at the beginning of the 20th century and had protective alliances with one another. Consequentially, when a Slavic freedom fighter assassinated Duke Ferdinand, what should have been a local incident between one nation and its subject erupted into a global conflict. In such a case that the people attempt to retake their national identity in the coming years, then it is important to be aware that the fight may not be against their own government alone. This is not in contrast with what I said earlier, as I maintain that a third world war is not likely; instead, that “every nation in the world is united against the world.” The difference is this: should the Irish revolt, they must be prepared to defend themselves against troops from the rest of Europe. Dissident Irish forces do not share the same international assurances as the Irish government. Any alliances they might have would be from other dissident forces and not from any “official” internationally recognized State. In short, nothing is legally binding. Even if this did spark a series of global revolutions, it would not be country versus country, as has happened in the past, but instead, every government would have the means of cooperating to put down the uprisings in each locality that the revolutionaries would lack. Should a Civil War break out in the United States between the Right and the Left, it would be foolish to assume the rest of the world would not come to the aid of the American regime. The righteousness or even likelihood of success behind such a cause is not brought into question (divide and conquer is a powerful strategy); I am merely attempting to bring into light the difference in appearance between past World Wars and what such a conflict would look like today. The unfortunate truth is that, unless complacency strengthens the one world government as it exists, the chance of such an outcome to reclaim America (and for others, their own nationality), is increasingly likely.

Though I am hesitant to say it, dissident warfare is, in all likelihood, the inescapable future. But a war with the globalists is not a war against the world.

It is a war against the elite.