all 5 comments

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's funny that people see it as a choice to either be on the U.S or USSR's side during Cold War, even though the term "Third World" originally referred to countries who didn't belong to either.

Such as Finland, who opted to be neutral after 1945. Or the Portuguese, who were still busy running their Empire that both the U.S and the Soviets had been trying to end.

[–]VraiBleuScots Protestant, Ulster Loyalist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Both were Jewish controlled cesspits. But I agree with him that America is by far the worst. The USSR actually got a little more based as time went on whereas America has only been in a continuous slide towards degeneracy.

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Look into jewish immigration from USSR to America. Millions of jews migrated to the US. So what you're talking about is likely a direct function of the share of jewish influence in either society.

[–]JuliusCaesar225Nationalist + Socialist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I posted about this here over summer -

I think in the long term he was shown to be correct. It is not much different than supporting Russia today as they still engage in Bolshevik style propaganda against the West. It is clear their ruling class has stronger instincts than the West and if Russia were to take control over the West the Bolshevik nonsense would go away because it would serve no purpose anymore. This not true of the Western elite who have no problems sabotaging the West's power potential and future.

[–]JuliusCaesar225Nationalist + Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yockey's justification:

A Russian occupation would develop along one or the other of two lines. The first possibility is an endless series of European uprisings against Russia that could result only in the expulsion of the demoralised barbarians. The second possibility would result from Russia’s introducing a clever regime and according Europe extensive autonomy and magnanimous treat- ment. Within a few decades, this Europe would naturally aim at infiltrating horizontally the whole Russian seat of origin, its technical, economic, social, and, finally, military and political life. Instead of the Russification of Europe, as Dostoievsky and Aksakov dreamt of it, would result the Europeanisation of Russia once again, and this time in far stronger degree. This would occur from pure historical necessity, since this is the Age of Absolute Politics and Europe is politically shrewd whereas barbarian Russia is formless and politically inept, fluctuating between senseless vehemence and inner doubt. Not even the most brilliant statesmen in Russia could use this barbarian material to subjugate Europe in this Imperialist stage of its Destiny. An attempt by Russia to integrate Europe into its power-accumulation peacefully would eventually result in the rise of a new Symbiosis: Europe- Russia. Its final form would be that of a European Imperium. An attempt by Russia to chastise and terrorise Europe without the help of America would result in Russia’s expulsion from Europe for good, by a Europe whose own dormant barbarian instincts had been thus reawakened.

If Russia should occupy Europe and attempt to imitate the American policy of encouraging petty-statism, to divide and 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.

....Should Russia attempt to terrorise 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 realise 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.

America can only divide Europe-no matter what its policy.

Russia can only unite Europe-no matter what its policy.