Imperium is the name of the 1948 book by Francis Parker Yockey which laid out his Philosophy of History & Politics. He builds upon Spengler and then goes beyond him. The word imperium comes from the Latin for command. That led to a meaning of ‘the right to give orders.’ This, in turn, came to mean ‘supreme power.’ We call it Empire today. Thus Yockey stood for the Empire of the West or Occident.
The Western Imperium would have as its core the European Motherland. This would be all of Europe from Dublin to Vladisvostok; what we call EuroSiberia today. It would also include the Colonies of Europe: Iceland, Canada, USA, Australia, New Zealand and the Southern Cone of South America: Argentina, Chile, Uruguay and the southern part of Brazil. European-descended peoples would be full citizens.
Reading Yockey’s IMPERIUM is heady stuff. He calls for “a complete cleansing of the Western soul from every form of Materialism, from Rationalism, Equality, social chaos, Communism, Bolshevism, liberalism, Leftism of every variety, Money-worship, democracy, finance-capitalism, the domination of Trade, nationalism, parliamentarism, feminism, race-sterility, weak ideas of ‘happiness’ and the like.”
To replace these ideals, he puts forth: “The strong and manly Idea of the Age of Absolute Politics: Authority, Discipline, Faith, Responsibility, Duty, Ethical Socialism, Fertility, Order, State, Hierarchy–the creation of the Empire of the West.”
Francis Parker Yockey died in 1960 in the custody of what he called the ‘Washington Regime.’ Two big changes occurred in Europe since his death. One was the demise of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact. There Yockey would be proven right in his contention that the Washington Regime was more destructive to Europe than anything which came out of the Kremlin. We’re speaking here of De-industrialization and demography.
But the other big change with the Mass Immigration from Muslims and Africans would be more problematic. On migrants from sub-Saharan Africa, Yockey’s position would be predictable and to the point: Get rid of them BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY.
His position on Muslims from the Maghreb would be more difficult to ascertain. The Belgian Jean Thiriart, who built upon much of Yockey’s since 1960, would have opposition to Israel & Zionism as the centerpiece. Thus the Maghreb and Turkey would be incorporated into Eurosiberia, religious distinctions ignored and Exogamy of Europeans as a conscious policy.
This also seems to have been favored by many in the International Eurasian Movement. This Moscow-centered movement led by Alexandr Dugin–whom I admire–sees a USA thrust into Central Asia. Thus the need for for Muslim allies. But the recent events of the bombings in Moscow show the definite limitations of this approach.
But in IMPERIUM you see intimations of the opposite approach. Yockey makes reference to “the rear-guard in the West of the fulfilled Arabian Culture, the Church-State-Nation-People-Race of the Jew.” (This must be news to be both Jews & Muslims!) Since he agreed with Spengler that cultures don’t inter-penetrate, Yockey would seem to believe that the Arabian culture was alien and would be unable to be absorbed by Europe. If this is the case, then the term ‘Eurabia’ would be a misnomer; ‘Arabia’ would have to be placed ahead of ‘Euro.’
Following this line of thought, a Yockey today would be in the same camp as the late Oriana Fallaci. Fallaci was the famed Italian journalist and writer. A champion of the Democratic Left–as opposed to the Stalinoid or pro-Communist Left–two events caused a sea change in her attitudes. The 9/11 events led her to a pro-American point of view. The other was the Muslim Mass Immigration into Europe which she called an invasion.
Fallaci in her books THE RAGE AND THE PRIDE and THE FORCE OF REASON uses language akin to that of Yockey in THE PROCLAMATION OF LONDON. Whereas Yockey was attacking what he termed ‘organized Jewry’ AT THAT TIME, Fallaci is attacking Islam in the here and now.
She writes that the Islamic colonization of Europe is the result of “the bankers who have created the farce called the European Union, the popes who have invented the fable of ecumenism, the spineless individuals who have created the lie of pacifism, the hypocrites who have planned the fraud called humanitarian help. It is Europe with its leaders with no honor and no wits, with its intellectuals without dignity and without bravery. It is the sick Europe that has sold itself as a whore to the sultans, to the caliphs, to the viziers . . . ”
If Yockey agreed with Fallaci, that would mean Guillaume Faye would be the heir of Yockey. Faye, a leader of the French New Right and today what’s called Identitarianism, says Yockey’s view of Washington as THE enemy of Europe is outdated. Washington is a rival and occasional ally, not the enemy. Where Yockey hinted at the Third World being the ally of Europe–this was greatly expanded by Thiriart–Faye sees the Third World as THE enemy. Kai Murros has done a brilliant job of expanding upon this.
Following this line of thought, Jews would be seen as part of the West. And Israel as an extension of Europe. That’s also how the Islamists see it it. Would Yockey?
To be continued . . .