Ok

En poursuivant votre navigation sur ce site, vous acceptez l'utilisation de cookies. Ces derniers assurent le bon fonctionnement de nos services. En savoir plus.

jeudi, 19 juillet 2018

Revilo P. Oliver & Francis Parker Yockey

oliver.jpg

Revilo P. Oliver & Francis Parker Yockey

The writings of Francis Parker Yockey have fascinated the far Right for a half-century and more. I would argue that the person most responsible for this popularity is the late classics professor Revilo P. Oliver. While Prof. Oliver had little practical input in the distribution of Yockey writings (that credit would go more to Willis Carto and George Dietz), it was Oliver’s imprimatur that lent Yockey a gravitas that ensured he would be cherished as something other than the author of some controversial, obscurantist tracts. 

This is true even though Oliver disagreed with Yockey on a number of key points. He championed Yockey even in the early 1960s when Oliver was writing for the John Birch Society and had to couch his praise in evasive words. Years later, when his critical essays were mainly limited to the small-run periodical Liberty Bell and he could write whatever he pleased (which often meant page-long footnotes explicating minutiae of philology, archeology and race), he still held Yockey in great esteem, someone whose errors were as worthy of explication as his insights.

Accordingly, anyone who studies Yockey very quickly runs into Prof. Oliver. Here are some highlights of the Yockey-Oliver connection.

Francis_Parker_Yockey.jpgRPO in the Yockey Biographies

We now have two big Yockey biographies at our disposal. There is Kevin Coogan’s Dreamer of the Day: Francis Parker Yockey and the Postwar Fascist International, published in 1999. And, new in 2018, Kerry Bolton’s Yockey: A Fascist Odyssey. Despite the somewhat similar titles, the books are very different, and hardly “synoptic” narratives. While offering many curious details of Yockey’s life, the Bolton book largely takes an historiographic view, reviewing how Yockey was seen and written about through the passing decades. For example, Bolton tells us that one notable American figure of the Right, Wilmot Robertson of The Dispossessed Majority and the magazine Instauration, did not care for Yockey at all. Yockey was too Spenglerian; he followed Spengler’s rather mystical and unprovable idea of historical cycles. Worst of all, he tried to evade the hard and essential factor of biological (or “vertical”) race. Yockey, like Spengler, instead emphasized what he called “horizontal race,” a kinship more of cultural spirit than blood.

As for Oliver, he shared some of these objections, but never ceased to endorse what he saw as the kernel of Yockey’s argument, which was the quasi-organic unity of (Western) culture. He knew of Yockey before Yockey’s Imperium was popularized in the early 1960s. He praised Yockey’s insights in the pages of American Opinion and The American Mercury during that decade. He assisted with the founding of the Yockeyite National Youth Alliance organization in the late 60s. He was still treating Yockey as a figure of serious analysis in the 1980s.

Conversely, in the Coogan study Oliver hardly appears at all. He is merely a name mentioned in passing, mainly with regard to the National Youth Alliance. Coogan ignores RPO’s extensive writing on Yockey. For that matter, Coogan does not seem to be much interested in Imperium—or even have read it, let alone Yockey’s other writings. For Coogan, Yockey’s “philosophy of history” exists mainly as a title of a big cult book that enraptured the far Right in the 1960s and beyond. It is most peculiar to attempt a biography of a philosopher without discussing his philosophy, let alone critics’ commentaries on it, but that is what we have here. And it explains why Coogan makes RPO no more than a minor, ancillary figure.

To digress a little: only about half of Coogan’s Dreamer of the Day pertains to Yockey’s writing or life events. There is little historiography or critical discussion, from RPO or anyone else. And yet the book is far longer than it needs to be (644 pp. in paperback), padded out with every stray rumor and scrap of research the author found. The biographical portion is derived in large part from FOIA files as well as various letters that an earlier researcher, Keith Stimely, received in the 1980s. The rest of the content is a hyperbolic exposition of what Coogan calls the “Fascist International”: a murky stew into which he stirs such extraneous, oddball characters as Chilean diplomat and mystic Miguel Serrano, and British occultist Aleister Crowley. Throughout the book Coogan throws in misinformed, lurid notions about such things as Yockey’s parentage (Coogan has the birthdate of Yockey’s father Louis wrong, and thereby implies Louis was a bastard, born years after his ostensible father died) and researcher Stimely’s personal life (based on allegations in David McCalden’s lively-but-scurrilous Revisionist Newsletter in the 1980s). Sensationalism was the main objective here.

RPO on Comparative Morphology

Much of Oliver’s writing on Yockey is a half-century old now, yet it is still the most trenchant and inclusive analysis. So far as I can tell, he is the only person who analyzed Imperium as a work in a definable genre, what one might call the philosophy of morphological history. In a very long 1963 essay, published in American Opinion (though very un-Birchite in scope and theme), he compares Yockey with a number of others in the school including, most obviously, The Decline of the West‘s Oswald Spengler, Lawrence R. Brown (The Might of the West) and Arnold Toynbee (A Philosophy of History).

Although RPO quibbles with some of Yockey’s factual asides—e.g., his apparent forgetfulness about the Thirty Years War when stating that Germany was fortunate to avoid most of the carnage that depleted the rest of Europe from the Middle Ages onward—he is generally appreciative of and laudatory toward Imperium. The basic reason for this seems to be that, whatever Oliver’s own doubts may have been about Spenglerian theories of historical morphology, or Yockey’s own quasi-mystical belief in Destiny, he agrees with the Yockey’s fundamental argument: that the Western civilization from the Middle Ages at least has been a unitary whole, and that the destructive conflicts of the 20th century amounted to a pathology exacerbated by outside elements:

[T]he culture of the West, like every viable civilization, is a unity in the sense that its parts are organically interdependent. Although architecture, music, literature, the mimetic arts, science, economics, and religion may seem at first glance more or less unrelated, they are all constituent parts of the cultural whole, and the disease of any one will sooner or later affect all the others. Your hands will not long retain their strength, if there is gangrene in the foot or cancer in the stomach.[1]

imperium.pngWriting in 1963, Oliver avoids mention of Yockey’s “culture-distorter” or the Jewish Question (although he makes a nod to that Birchite proxy, the International Communist Conspiracy). Years later, with the “Birch Business” well behind him, Oliver would be more explicit.

This brings us to “The Enemy of Our Enemies” (1981), which George Dietz’s Liberty Bellmagazine put out in a fat issue that also contained Yockey’s own “The Enemy of Europe.” The two monographs were later republished together as a paperback book.[2] Yockey’s extended essay, translated back into English from a surviving German version, is nearly a hundred pages, an excoriation of American hegemony over the European culture-soul. The Oliver section is even longer, a brilliant and cranky, no-holds-barred fulmination. While beginning as an exegesis of Yockey, his influences and his errors, this commentary readily departs from that pretext, delivering instead RPO’s own, broader variation on the general theme:

In 1914, our civilization was worm-eaten at the core, but its brightly glittering surface concealed the corruption within from superficial eyes. It was taken for granted that the globe had become one world, the world of which the Aryan nations were the undisputed masters, while all the lesser races already were, or would soon become, merely the subject inhabitants of their colonial possession. This reasonable conception of the world’s unity oddly survived the catastrophes that followed and it conditioned unthinking mentalities to accept the preposterous notion of the current propaganda for “One World,” which is couched in endless gabble that is designed to conceal the fact that it is to be a globe under the absolute and ruthless dominion of the Jews—a globe on which our race, if not exterminated, will be the most degraded and abject of all.[3]

The Introduction to Imperium: A Question of Attribution

Finally, a note on a point that perennially comes up when Yockey and Oliver are discussed. Was the long foreword to the post-1960 editions of Imperium, signed Willis A. Carto, actually written by Mr. Carto, or by Prof. Oliver? Keith Stimely claimed the latter, in a furious booklet he distributed in the mid-1980s after he left Carto’s employ at the Institute for Historical Review.

When pressed, Oliver was vague on the subject, writing Stimely in 1984 only that he had given Carto permission to use material he had written as suggested introduction to a new reprint of the book. Stimely reproduced part of Oliver’s letter in his anti-Carto booklet, and Kerry Bolton also excerpt it in his Yockey biography:

I wrote a lengthy and signed memorandum on Yockey’s importance as a philosopher of history and a nationalist, hoping to inlist the support of persons who would subsidize a new edition of Imperium . . .  I . . . told Carto to make whatever use he wished of what I had written for an intoduction by him or anyone he chose to introduce the new edition. I therefore gave him the material, and it would be dishonourable of me to try to reclaim it. [4]

This essay-memorandum seems to have vanished. Oliver wrote a review of Imperium some years later (1966) for The American Mercury [5] that bears some resemblance to the philosophical discussion in the Introduction, but is otherwise entirely different: i.e., not a “retread” of some older piece that was repurposed.

When the question was put to them, both Willis Carto and his wife (now widow) Elisabeth maintained that the Introduction was indeed written by Mr. Carto himself. Therefore, worrying through the problem, Kerry Bolton comes to a Solomonic compromise, and says that it

seems plausible, stylistically and philosophically . . . that Carto wrote the first biographical half of the ‘Introduction’ and Oliver wrote the second half, commenting on the Yockeyan doctrine of Culture-pathology.

Notes

[1] Revilo P. Oliver, “History and the Historians,” 1963; collected in America’s Decline, 1983, pp. 276-277. https://archive.org/stream/AmericasDecline1983V2/OLIVERRe... [2]

[2] Yockey and Oliver, The Enemy of Europe/the Enemy of Our Enemies. Liberty Bell Publications, 2003.

[3] https://archive.org/stream/TheEnemyOfOurEnemies/EEE#page/... [3]

[4] Kerry Bolton, Yockey: A Fascist Odyssey. Arktos, 2018.

[5] http://www.revilo-oliver.com/news/1966/06/the-shadow-of-empire-francis-parker-yockey-after-twenty-years/ [4]

 

Article printed from Counter-Currents Publishing: https://www.counter-currents.com

URL to article: https://www.counter-currents.com/2018/07/revilo-p-oliver-and-francis-parker-yockey/

URLs in this post:

[1] Image: https://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/ReviloOliver.jpg

[2] https://archive.org/stream/AmericasDecline1983V2/OLIVERReviloP.-Americas_Decline_1983_v2: https://archive.org/stream/AmericasDecline1983V2/OLIVERReviloP.-Americas_Decline_1983_v2

[3] https://archive.org/stream/TheEnemyOfOurEnemies/EEE#page/n49/: https://archive.org/stream/TheEnemyOfOurEnemies/EEE#page/n49/

[4] http://www.revilo-oliver.com/news/1966/06/the-shadow-of-empire-francis-parker-yockey-after-twenty-years/: http://www.revilo-oliver.com/news/1966/06/the-shadow-of-empire-francis-parker-yockey-after-twenty-years/

 

vendredi, 05 juin 2015

Spengler, Yockey, & The Hour of Decision

auguste-empereur-de-rome1.jpg

Spengler, Yockey, & The Hour of Decision

“That is what the craving for the peace of fellahdom, for protection against everything that disturbs the daily routine, against destiny in every form, would seem to intimate: a sort of protective mimicry vis-a-vis world history, human insects feigning death in the face of danger, the “happy ending” of an empty existence, the boredom of which has brought in jazz music and negro dancing to perform the Dead March for a great Culture.”
—Oswald Spengler, The Hour of Decision 

Francis Parker Yockey is routinely described as a Spenglerian philosopher. Yet the Oswald Spengler whom Yockey evokes in Imperium and The Enemy of Europe is not the patient, ponderous explainer from The Decline of the West. Rather, Yockey’s writings are modeled stylistically on Spengler’s polemical manifesto from 1933, The Hour of Decision.

I offer the epigraph above as an example. In English translation, at least, Spengler’s rhetorical flights are very similar to Yockey’s of fifteen or more years later. Many of Yockey’s themes are virtual retreads of Spengler in The Hour of Decision. Here is something from The Enemy of Europe (circa 1948). Yockey is talking about how Great Britain abandoned her sovereignty after the Great War:

During the third decade of the 20th century, England gradually handed over its sovereignty to America in order to continue pursuing its distorted policy, a policy devoted to the world-wide preservation of the status quo. Naturally, such an unpleasant fact was not admitted by the representatives of a certain mentality, and naturally again—those who bore the responsibility for the transfer of power shied away from defining the new relationship precisely; for had they done so, the whole policy would have been spoilt. Nevertheless, when Baldwin announced in 1936 that he would not deploy the English fleet without consulting America beforehand, he informed the entire political world in unmistakable terms that the end of English independence had come, that English sovereignty had passed over to America. (The Enemy of Europe [1], p. 9)

Now here is Spengler making a similar point, fifteen years earlier:

In 1931 England granted by statute complete equality of status to the white Dominions in the Commonwealth of Nations, thereby relinquishing her priority and allying herself with these states on the ground of common interests, particularly that of protection by the British navy. But there is nothing to prevent Canada and Australia from throwing sentiment to the winds and turning to the United States if they see a chance of better protection there – for instance, from Japan, as white nations. England’s former position on the farther side of Singapore is already abandoned, and if India is lost, there will be no real sense in retaining it in Egypt and the Mediterranean either. In vain does English diplomacy of the old style try in the old way to mobilize the Continent for English ends: against America as the debtor front and against Russia as the front against Bolshevism. (The Hour of Decision [2], p. 40)

Imperium/The Enemy of Europe (the second work was conceived as a pendant to the first) is thus like a reiteration, a New Revised Edition of The Hour of Decision. The parallels are striking, but they are not simply a result of Yockey slavishly imitating Spengler. I doubt Yockey consciously did. I suggest rather that the echoes are there because both Spengler and Yockey are both speaking in a conceptual shorthand that leans on the ideas and terms of art first adumbrated in The Decline of the West. In The Hour of Decision, Spengler can talk about the spirit of Prussianism or the culturelessness of “Fellaheen” peoples, for example, without laboriously explaining the terms. This is because he presupposes a familiarity with the Morphology of History described in Decline. And so it is with Imperium/Enemy. The main difference is that Yockey alludes to Spengler, whereas Spengler is referencing himself.

Now, this derivation from Decline means that readers who don’t know Spengler’s basic schema may well be bewildered or annoyed when reading The Hour of Decision. This is what happened when some American book critics reviewed Hour in 1934, when the English translation was published. Writing in The Saturday Review of Literature, one scribe indulges in non-stop head-scratching, saying in effect, What does Spengler mean when he talks about Prussianism? He doesn’t actually mean Prussians. He’s got some personal, idiosyncratic definition; perhaps Prussianism is meant to designate

some fundamental trait of character . . . essential to the greatness, or even the preservation, or any nation worth thinking about. What that trait is cannot easily be stated in a definition; it involves, however, above all, a subordination of every softer impulse of mankind to the stern duty of rigorous discipline . . .[1]

The reviewer, of course, is winging it. He hasn’t read The Decline of the West, but he has a mental image of a Prussian (in a Pickelhaube helmet, no doubt) and figures that Prussianism is a cult of martinets, hard men. Anyway, it fits in well with the review’s title: “Spengler’s Fascist Manifesto.”

Contrariwise, Allen Tate reviewed The Hour of Decision around the same time for The American Review, and showed an extensive understanding of The Decline of the West. Tate has one quibble with the new manifesto: it seems to be a clarion call for heroic, individual effort, and that would appear to be inconsistent with the historic inevitability that runs through Spenglerian theory:

How can Spengler’s organic determinism be reconciled with the call to arms that he now shouts to the white races, particularly the Teutonic peoples, to repel the twin revolutionary menace of the dark races and of the proletariat? I think this part of the new Spengler book may be dismissed as so much jingoism. In the violent attack on communism and other phases of the international revolutionary movement, Spengler forgets the schematicism of The Decline of the West, and falls into a kind of “rugged individualism” when he praises here and there the responsible man who by zeal and foresight builds a factory or a fortune.[2]

yockey.pngWell, not quite. Tate, whose attitude toward Spengler is generally approving, seems to be straining at a gnat here. The answer to his question is that individual action and “organic determinism” can and do coexist. They do not contradict each other. Denizens of a high culture do not turn into a herd of mindless cattle simply because some force majeure is in operation.

But Tate is making a useful point in a roundabout way. He is noting the difference in rhetorical styles between The Decline of the West and The Hour of Decision. The first is an impassive, intricate, delicate trusswork of philosophical theory; the second is something akin to journalism. If Spengler in Hour seems to be sloganeering more than usual, and indulging in such untoward, piquant topics as the threat of the colored races, it’s because he’s writing political commentary, not philosophy.

This immediacy, I submit, accounts for a lot of the rhetorical similarity between the Yockey of Imperium/Enemy and the Spengler of The Hour of Decision. The writers are giving us a snapshot of the world situation as it appears now—”now” being in 1948 and 1933. Coming to The Hour of Decision for the first time, after knowing Yockey’s work for forty years, I was struck by both the similarities in style and by Spengler’s breathtaking insights. Just a sample:

Is the United States a power with a future? Before 1914 superficial observers talked of unlimited possibilities after they had looked about them for a week of two, and post-war “society” from Western Europe, compounded of snobs and mobs, for full of enthusiasm for “husky” young America as being far superior to ourselves – nay, positively a model for us to follow. But for purposes of durable form records and dollars must not be taken to represent the spiritual strength and depth of the people to whom they belong; neither must sport be confused with race-soundness nor business intelligence with spirit and mind. What is “hundred per cent Americanism”? A mass existence standardized to a low average level, a primitive pose, or a promise for the future? . . . All we know is that so far there is neither a real nation nor a real State. Can both of these develop out of the knocks of fate, or is this possibility excluded by the very fact of the Colonial type, whose spiritual past belongs elsewhere and is now dead? (The Hour of Decision, p. 36)

As Yockey will reiterate years later, there are great parallels between America and Russia; but Spengler specifically sees a kind of Bolshevism in the 1920s-’30s USA:

The resemblance to Bolshevik Russia is far greater than one imagines. There is the same breadth of landscape, which firstly, by excluding any possibility of successful attack by an invader, consequently excludes the experience of real national danger, and, secondly, by making the State not indispensable, prevents the development of any true political outlook. Life is organized exclusively from the economic side and consequently lacks depth, all the more because it contains nothing of that element of historic tragedy, of great destiny, that has widened and chastened the soul of Western peoples through the centuries. . . . And there is the same dictatorship there as in Russia (it does not matter that it is imposed by society instead of a party), affecting everything – flirtation and church-going, shoes and lipstick, dances and novels à la mode, thought, food, and recreation – that in the Western world is left to the option of individuals. There is one standardized type of American, and, above all, American woman, in body, clothes, and mind; any departure from or open criticism of the type arouses public condemnation in New York as in Moscow. . . .

Granted, there is no Communist party. But neither did this exist as an organization for election purposes in the Tsarist regime. And in the one country as in the other, there is a mighty underworld of an almost Dostoievsky sort, with its own urge to power, its own methods of destruction and of business, which, in consequence of the corruption prevailing in the organs of public administration and security, extends upwards into very prosperous strata of society – especially as regards that alcohol-smuggling which has intensified political and social demoralization to the extreme. It embraces both the professional criminal class and secret societies of the Ku Klux Klan order, Negroes and Chinese as well as the uprooted elements of all European stocks and races, and it possesses some very effective organizations, certain of which are of long standing, such as the Italian Camorra, the Spanish Guerrilla, the Russian Nihilists before 1917, and the agents of the Cheka later. Lynching, kidnapping, and attempts to assassinate, murder, robbery, and arson are all well-tested methods of political-economic propaganda. (The Hour of Decision, pp. 36-38)

Notes

1. Fabian Franklin, “Spengler’s Fascist Manifesto,” The Saturday Review of Literature, 17 February 1934. http://www.unz.org/Pub/SaturdayRev-1934feb17-00490a02 [3]

2. Allen Tate, “Spengler’s Tract Against Liberalism,” The American Review, April 1934, p.41. http://www.unz.org/Pub/AmericanRev-1934apr-00041 [4]

 

 

 

Article printed from Counter-Currents Publishing: http://www.counter-currents.com

 

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2015/05/spengler-yockey-and-the-hour-of-decision/

 

URLs in this post:

[1] The Enemy of Europe: http://www.jrbooksonline.com/pdf_books/enemyofeurope.pdf

[2] The Hour of Decision: https://archive.org/stream/TheHourOfDecision/HOD#page/n40

[3] http://www.unz.org/Pub/SaturdayRev-1934feb17-00490a02: http://www.unz.org/Pub/SaturdayRev-1934feb17-00490a02

[4] http://www.unz.org/Pub/AmericanRev-1934apr-00041: http://www.unz.org/Pub/AmericanRev-1934apr-00041

samedi, 17 août 2013

On Yockey’s America

The Jitterbugs & the Vabanquespieler :
On Yockey’s America

By Michael O'Meara

Ex: http://www.counter-currents.com

“For us there is but one crime: to be untrue to ourselves.”

– Francis Parker Yockey, 1953

yockey.jpgThe “Judeo-African cacophony” mesmerizing the jitterbugs on the dance floors of the Thirties was part of a larger program to debauch the conservative Christian rhythms of American life.

Such at least was the argument Francis Parker Yockey made in his first published work, “The Tragedy of Youth” (1939).[1]

In this early piece, full of promise and prefiguring aspects of his later critique of American life, the 22-year-old Yockey depicted an America whose youth had begun to keep step with the intonations and inflections of its Jewish bandmasters.

Besides the folly of their un-European cavorting, Americans, he thought, were acting out the worldview of an alien-minded minority in control of the country’s media and entertainment.

Drinking, smoking, and other bad habits glamorized by Hollywood became, in this spirit, marks of sophistication; sports were fetishized; public opinion was shaped and reshaped to legitimate machinations of every sort.

More seriously, God was “replaced by lust, the priest by the psychoanalyst, and the hero and heroine by the promiscuous lounge-lizard and the glittering harlot.”[2]

For the more educated, there were books and magazines promoting class war, racial equality, and anti-European (especially anti-German) hatred – aimed at destroying “whatever exclusiveness, national feeling, or racial instinct” still part of the American people.[3]

Institutionalizing these subversions, Roosevelt’s New Deal, the granddaddy of the present anti-white system, took on debts and obligations favoring the Left forces – themselves puppets of the international financiers and bankers responsible for the deception and dissimulation entrancing the jitterbugs.

Against this backdrop of cultural distortion, usurious state policy, and agitations favoring causes alien to American affairs, the country’s youth, Yockey claimed, was being conditioned to fight as conscripts in liberal, Jewish, and Communist causes inimical to their national interest.

***

The Catholic-educated prodigy of German-Irish descent — already speaking to public meetings of the German-American Bund (40 percent of whose members were Irish), Pelley’s Silver Shirts, and Father Coughlin’s “clerico-fascists” – had an understanding of the New Deal State and its innovative forms of corporate-financial-cultural control –that was virtually unique among American anti-liberals, an understanding inspired by the Conservative Revolution of Oswald Spengler, Carl Schmitt, and Karl Haushofer.

Since the late Forties, Yockey’s opus has animated much of Europe’s vanguard and been vindicated, in the main, by subsequent events. He nevertheless remains a prophet without honor in his native land. 

The True America

A certain ambiguity runs through Yockey’s understanding of America. On the one hand, he saw it as a colonial offshoot of European civilization and thus an organic facet of its High Culture.

On the other, he knew that from the beginning there were problems with the “new nation” — problems that disposed it not just to alien influences, but to demonic entreprises endemic to the capitalism that came with its Protestant revolt against Gothic Europe.

The line between inner disposition and outer subversion is accordingly blurred in Yockey – as it was within the larger metahistorical forces affecting the “country” itself.

***

Basic to Yockey’s understanding of America was his belief that it was, at root, an integral and organic part of Europe.

Whenever he spoke of “the true America,” as opposed to the America that had been taken over by the “culture distorters” and become “the enemy of Europe,” it was the America that had originated as a European colony — the America whose “culture” was a branch of Europe’s High Culture — the America whose people still bore traces of the noble, heroic, and Gothic character of their ancestors.

“All colonials,” Yockey felt, “have a certain plane of their being which is susceptible to the centripetal attraction of the mother-soil.”[4] For they share a common history with “the parent-organism” – no matter how much the distorters might insist otherwise.

The true American – i.e., the American whose highest loyalty was to his “mother soil and father culture” – thus instinctively isolated himself from all efforts to betray Europe: like French Canadians and South African Boers who refused to be conscripted by Washington in the Jews’ war against the Third Reich.[5]

A child of European, especially German, culture, Yockey alone among American anti-liberals saw that America’s origin had tied its destiny to that of Europe, and that no matter how many cities the colony built, no matter how many millions of automobiles it turned out every season — no matter, even, how successful it was in reducing Europe to rubble and occupying it — no matter, it (the colony) would never, not in a thousand years, surpass the achievement and destiny of its mother soil and father culture.

To even think it was philosophically absurd.

***

The country that grew from a small, 17th-century European settlement on the Eastern seaboard faced “a vast hinterland populated with hostile savages and untouched with any form of civilization.”[6]

This would be the start of America’s abnormal development, for its frontier represented a confrontation with nature, very unlike the European frontier, which formed a distinct boundary between rival power-units with contending cultural or religious styles and was thus a boundary that of necessity enhanced the state-idea among Europeans — most brilliantly so in Hohenzollern Prussia.[7]

America’s European settlers – especially its hardy Scots-Irish pioneers, who conquered its frontier through “personal will” – would do so with the hardiness and fearlessness once characteristic of the European race, in its urge for great distance and conquest – but, alas, without the formative influence of a regnant state.

(No Celt, anyway, could possibly bear the state, for its alien heel has been kept on his neck for all its history — except, of course, for those English Celts, whose Germanic language and ways made them so different).[8]

But if the absence of a regnant state enhanced the Americans’ admirable sense of “self-reliance, resourcefulness, bravery, and independence,” it also undermined the European idea of the state as the superpersonal expression of the nation’s will.[9]

America and Europe’s High Culture

Revilo Oliver, whose materialism and rationalism exemplified Yockey’s notion of 19th-century thought, claimed his premises were Spengler’s conclusions.[10] Oliver didn’t quite understand, though, that Yockey wasn’t an orthodox Spenglerian — but rather a radical revisionist intent on turning Spenglerian pessimism into a fresh assertion of ascendent European life.[11]

Like his mentor (Spengler), Yockey saw civilizations as spiritual organisms, with distinct ages or cycles attuned to the growth (the possibility) of the inner idea (the “soul”) inherent in their culture. The “organism,” as such, takes the human material at its disposal and “impresses it into its service.”

Unlike Spengler, Yockey thought there was still a good deal of life left in Western culture and thus that it was vital the culture remain true to itself.

But here America’s problem began. While the “true America” was an offshoot of Europe’s High Culture, the country (first as colony, then as sovereign state) lacked an indigenous culture class and a significant nativist articulation, which, as a colony, left it with shallow roots in its mother soil. America especially lacked an inner organic sense of mission or necessity. Without this sense, it had only a creedal identity based on a crusading Prostestanism opened to all the world and ordered solely for the sake of its predetaory capitalism.

The 19th-century ideas of rationalism and materialism, shorn of all faith and instinct, would thus dominate Americans in ways they never dominated Europeans (at least not until 1945). In dismissing all non-utilitarian and non-economic considerations, such rationalist-materialist ideas left Americans increasingly indifferent to Europe’s destiny, and ultimately defenseless before the ethnocidal dangers intrinsic to their purely monetary (i.e., cultureless and thus amoral) enterprise.

***

This was especially the case once liberal modernity roared onto the scene (1861–65 was the transitional period), turning rationalism and materialism into the unmitigated rule of money and commerce. Money, Yockey held, was the enemy of authority, being private, individualistic, and, ultimately, irresponsible.[12]

Here again, America, product of England’s predatory Whig Oligarchy, differed from Continental Europe. For the High Culture relegates the productive and reproductive aspects of life (the economic aspects, however vital they may be to survival) — to the lowest order of existence.[13]

The American, as such, was preeminently a “capitalist” — motivated by the will to accumulate, prosper, and thus demonstrate his individual salvation. As Spengler put it, he was a Calvinist rather than a Pietist, a Viking rather than a knight, and a pirate whose instinct favored personal gain and not the knight’s devotion to Duty and Destiny.[14]

There was, as a consequence, no aristocratic and priestly estates in America to serve as the culture’s guardian, only economic forces oriented to the lower animal aspects of existence.

In the New World, the Faustian will to power of Europe’s High Culture became a soulless mechanization, whose technical fixation on immediate sensate phenomena left it oblivious to higher realities.

Their enchantment with technics and capitalist ethic of quantification would eventually lead these colonials to see Europeans as inferior to themselves — especially once their flying fortresses incinerated much of the Continent’s millennial heritage.

The hard-headed apostles of science and rationality, economically fixated on comfort and pleasure (“the pursuit of happiness”) have, it follows, been more inclined to feminine principles than to virile exploits or metaphysical perspectives.

The abstract ideological principles of the colonies’ Masonic, Deist, and Unitarian elites, who based their new nation on a scrap of paper (the Constitution), ostensively founded the nation on “the rule of reason, humanity, justice and all the rest,” but in actuality their novel enterprise was little more than a caricature of the European “nation-idea,” dedicated to legitimating the great money-making possibilities inherent in the country’s speculative development.

Without a dynastic, cultural, or historical identity, the “new nation” was bereft of true politics, knowing only the business of partisan haggling.[15]

“The empty, smiling face, the uniform mind, the senseless chasing after noise, movement, and sensation, the obsession with money, the rejection of all spiritual standards of attainment” –  this was the condition of Yockey’s jitterbugs, who hadn’t a clue as to what kind of world was being designed for them.[16]

Politically and culturally, such tendencies made America an enterprise without grand possibility, evident in the fact that the American people never achieved a true sense of nationhood or statehood — that the country lacked both a ruling class and a culture stratum — and that, from the beginning, spiritual and transcendent principles were subordinated to materialist ones – thereby preparing the way for the money-changers, whose alien forms of parasitism would facilitate their rapid ascension into the inner circles of America’s plutocratic money elites.

America’s outremer “primitiveness” was especially evident in the condition of the Negro, who constituted a sort of paradigm for the country as a whole.

Incapable of tragedy, pleasure-seeking, and child-like, the Negro, like the culturally-distorted American, exemplified “natural man” — incapable of abstraction, without a virile sense of history or honor, with no art and no will to destiny, fixated almost solely on happiness, status, and sensate vocations. This feminine-matriarchal people devoted to routine and technicization could not, then, but orient to the lowest common denominator.

The Culture of Distortion

Given their shallow culture and the dismissal of the tradition to which they were heirs, Americans were particularly vulnerable to the corrosions of 19th-century rationalism and materialism. Relatedly, they were an easy mark for “culture aliens” — for a world governed by money was a world indifferent to a man’s qualities.[17]

Foremost among the culture-aliens were the Jews: product of Spengler’s “Magian” culture, instinctually hostile to the European spirit, and bent on revenge.

In their counting houses, Americans would invariably overlook the Jews’ otherness, though they were of a different “Culture-Nation-Race.” Even before the War of Independence, they treated Jews as Europeans – Jews who had been shunned, ghettoized, and seen by most Europeans as an evil to be avoided.[18]

In traditionless, rationalized, money-worshipping America, the Jew, as culture and nature dictated, would effortlessly spread their “culture-pathology.”

Notions of “culture-parasitism” and “culture-retardation,” integral to Yockey’s analytical perspective, are familiar forms of cultural pathology and largely self-explanatory. The notion of “culture-distortion,” though roughly analogous to Spengler’s “pseudomorphorsis,” is entirely Yockey’s and plays a leading role in his understanding of America’s 20th-century experience in anti-Europeanism.

“Culture-distortion,” he explains, “is the condition in which outer life-forms [divert] the culture from its true life-path.”[19] The culture-distorter thus assumed control of the host organism by introducing alien elements into it that squandered its energies on things unrelated or opposed to its development. Culture-distortion would consequently end up mutilating the culture-organism, turning it away from its growth, its possibility, its destiny.

Beginning in the 1880s, the Jews (these inassimilable aliens rejected by Europe’s High Culture) began their invasion of America. By 1905, they were already a power, evident in fact that the United States, for the first time in its history, severed diplomatic relations with Russia on account of the “anti-Jewish pogroms” that had followed the Russo-Japanese War.

***

Through its financial acumen and early control of media (the press, movies, radio), and in alliance with the native forces of decadence and degeneration, Jewish power in the New World grew at an unprecedented rate.

In a country where “mass-thinking, mass-ideals, and mass-living prevails,” Jewish propaganda (in the form of advertising, fashion, and a hundred other things) effortlessly reshaped the American consciousness, propelling the jitterbugs onto the dance floor of their world-conquering schemes. Stories of German sadism or Orson Welles’ Mars invasion were peddled with similar success, just as “the ethical syphilis of Hollywood and the spiritual leprosy of New York” infiltrated the larger cultural body.

In 1933, the year of the European Revolution, the Jews acquired outright political control of the United States — something that a thousand years of effort had failed to achieve in Europe.

From this point forward, “the formation of the Jewish-American Symbiosis begins.”[20]

Swarming into Washington, Jews and their “sub-American” contractors started dissimulating the Jewish world view and “bringing under control every factor of public expression.”[21]

All who resisted were to be purged or ostracized.

Then, as the country’s racial instincts were worn down by the distorters, America (in accord with the policies of its liberal state and in the programming of its Culture Industry) assumed “a Jewish countenance” in its relations both with the rest of the world and with itself.[22]

For Yockey, Franklin Roosevelt, “the monster . . . who made of his life a study in infamy,” was a creature of the Jews, just as his New Deal was bent on Judaifying American government and society, promoting, as it did, principles of tolerance and universal brotherhood, which were further developed by Rockerfeler-funded social-engineers intent on morally disarming the American people.

In this, the prescient Yockey might be criticized for confusing Jewish supremacy with the increasing Judaification of American society (which Matthew Arnold had warned of in the 1860s), for Jewish power in America was arguably not consolidated until the late 1960s (even if its secular low-church market, in making money the ultimate standard, had already Judaicized American life and sentiments).[23]

That Roosevelt, in October 1937, began to maneuver the United States into the coming world war and that this war would be a war of annihilation — i.e., the sort of war fought between racially and culturally alien, rather then related peoples sharing the same civilization — was further evidence, in Yockey’s eyes, of Jewish hegemony and the Jews’ genocidal hatred of Europe.

Despite a certain exaggeration of Jewish power in this period, Yockey was nearly alone in seeing that the United States had become an anti-European power bound to the Jews’ vengeful compulsion to suppress Europe’s destiny.

Unlike other American anti-liberals, anti-Semitism for him evolved, rapidly and logically, into an anti-Americanism.

The Enemy of Europe 

As long as America had been ruled by men of European Christian stock, it remained “a European colony.”[24] But the America “distorted by the Revolution of 1933″ (a revolution carried out by the allegedly Jewish-dominated New Deal), was now lost to Europe.

America’s Judified anti-Europeanism was especially evident in the Second World War and in its subsequent occupation of the Continent.

For if the United States had possessed a proper ruling class, a tradition, and a regalian state, it would have stayed out of the Second World War, which became a defeat not just for Germany, but for all Europe — and thus, ultimately, a defeat for the true America.

Under its new Jewish-American regime, Washington after 1933 was instrumental in preparing the way for another European civil war – a war it would wage as if the enemy (their European kinsmen) weren’t human.[25]

Instead of being the great moral crusade against the absolute evil of fascism, the war in actuality represented a giant step toward the Judeo-plutocratic inauguration of a New World Order, based on American open markets and American economic practices.

To this end, American bombers (supported by their British vassals) reduced every German city to a heap of rubble, intentionally targeting heavily populated working-class residences — that is, “homes and families”; cities in France, Belgium, Holland, Italy, and Eastern Europe were also bombed, adding further hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties to US “kills”; American fighter-pilots similarly sought out civilians to machine-gun and terrorize; vast stores of equipment and armaments, often denied to American troops, were supplied to Soviet Russia to defend the Communist state and encourage its penetration into the heart of Europe; and throughout this most barbaric and punitive war in the white man’s history, the Washington regime talked incessantly of the enemy’s “war crimes” and its “inhumanity.”[26]

Yockey blamed America’s dishonorable conduct in the war on the culture-distorters, whose “motivation derived from the deep and total organic irreconcilability between a High Culture and a parasitic organism” (though I suspect that the country’s latter-day Puritans, given their tendency to dehumanize the enemy, ought also to share a large part of the responsibility).[27]

Even after the guns were silenced, America’s “ghastly dishonor” continued.

With the Red Army occupying Eastern Europe and the US Army Western Europe, the looting, raping, pillaging — and ethnic cleansing — began.

The Soviets plundered everything not bolted down; the greatest mass rape in Western history occurred in what became “East Germany”; and 16 million East-European Germans were forced to abandon lands and homes they had inhabited for centuries, 2 million of whom (mainly the very old and the very young) perished in the process.

With greater discrimination, the Americans raided German patent offices, stealing their superior technology; they rounded up their rocket scientists, confiscated the libraries they hadn’t burned, and made off with priceless art works. German women, most on the verge of starvation, were not subject to mass rape (except by black American and French African troops), but their favors could be had for a half-dozen eggs, some cigarettes, or a few chocolate bars.

If this weren’t enough, the culture-distorters (whose “fury had been heightened by the European Revolution of 1933″)[28], along with their American accomplices (especially the budding military-industrial complex), introduced large-scale starvation, abused POWs (several million of whom died as a consequence), hunted down anyone who failed to bow to the new conquerors, and imposed laws with ex post facto application.[29]

Adding insult to injury, the “American world-clown and the sadistic Jew” then endeavored to “re-educate” Europeans in the arts of anti-fascism, mammon-worship, and democracy (i.e., “the corruptibility of the government by private wealth”).

The war for Yockey represented a categorical defeat for the “true America” — and a total victory for the Jews over Western Civilization.

***

Since 1945, the two sides of the Atlantic have ceased to share the same inner experience of feeling, for it was essentially a war against Europe. European Americans who supported it, Yockey contended, were traitors — inner enemies of their own culture.[30]

Then, after being reduced to “a beggar colony of America,” Europe’s pre-1945 elites were replaced by “Michel elements” (liberal philistines embodying “the sum of European weaknesses”), who could be trusted to do the Jews’ bidding.

In the name of democracy, press rights and free speech were henceforth abrogated; political parties were required to obtain licenses; any expression of nationalism was criminalized, just as all anti-liberal formations critical of the occupiers’ regime were driven to the political fringe.

America-Jewry in this way sought to sever Europe’s roots, suppress her will to power, and deprive her of a sense of destiny.

In no meaningful political sense did Europe, in fact, continue to exist after 1945, thanks almost entirely to this monstrous entity with the Jewish head and the American body.[31]

America-Jewry’s anti-European vengeance was especially evident in comparison to its generous treatment of defeated Japan.

Indeed, the entire nonwhite world was soon made to know that the United States had conquered Europe and that the colored outer-revolt, encouraged by the distorters, was ready, at last, to triumph over its former white masters.

More than Soviet Communism, Yockey argued that Jewish-controlled America was the “enemy of Europe.”[32]

And this made America an enemy of “true America,” for the Jewish idea of America — as a land of immigrants, creedal propositions, and universal brotherhood — stripped it of any “national-spiritual significance” it may have once had, doing so, ultimately, for “the enslavement of the world by big business.”[33]

Every European-American loyal to his ancestral homeland — loyal to his own inmost being – was, Yockey concluded, duty bound to be disloyal to what America had become (even as he struggled to return it to Europe).

The American Vabanquespieler 

Yockey believed the 19th-century Age of Materialism and Rationalism, which had shaped America’s cultureless civilization and opened the way to the culture-distorters, came to an end with the First World War (1918), as a new age struggled to succeed it – a new age that would be animated by the same primordial sources that had brought about the European Revolution of 1933.

If not for America-Jewry’s Old Testament war on Europe, German-Prussian Ethical Socialism (in rejection of liberalism’s individualistic Reign of Quantity) would have inaugurated a New Age of Authority, Discipline, and Faith, bringing the whole world under Europe’s influence. Instead, the very opposite occurred.[34]

But even though the America of the culture-distorters had emerged victorious from the war, it changed not in the least the fact that America (this apotheosis of the 19th-century rationalism and materialism born of liberalism) still represented the past — and the past, Yockey held, could never defeat the future latent in Europe’s High Culture.

The barbarian victory of America’s 19th-century capitalism over the Germans’ Ethical Socialism had, indeed, already spread chaos and disorder throughout Western Civilization, heightening the imperative for a revolutionary transformation.[35]

***

All Yockey’s written works (several of which are works of genius) — all his tireless efforts to rally the defeated and demoralized anti-liberal vanguard for the coming struggle against America-Jewry — his alliance with and clandestine service to Slavic Communism in its Cold War against America’s Jewified liberalism — everything about this extraordinary man whose entire existence was devoted to the realization of Europe’s destiny makes him, in my mind, an exemplar of what Ernst Jünger called the Vabanquespieler. 

“A player of dangerous games,” “an adventurer willing to stake all on the throw of the dice,” a hero forged in storms of steel, a nature with the grandeur of a medieval knight[36] — Yockey the Vabanquespieler stood against the entire postwar era, heralding a coming global war between Europe and anti-Europe — between the white men of the North and America’s Jewish culture-distorters.

***

After a half year in Ireland’s enchanted west (1948), where he wrote his magnum opus, Yockey the Vabanquespieler set out to “build a new pan-European fascist superpower,” by rallying the scattered remnants of Europe’s defeated elites to a new assertion of Europe’s destiny — somewhat in the way 7th and 8th-century Irish monks had tried to keep the lights of the old civilization from going out on the mainland.[37]

Rejecting the “petty stateism” of the interwar movements and accounting for their mistakes, Yockey in 1949 founded the European Liberation Front, whose revolutionary-nationalist principles — particularly in its anti-Americanism and pro-Sovietism — were rejected by England’s pro-American Union Movement; then by Continental Hitler-worshippers, who preferred a strictly racialist to a European-culturalist orientation; and, finally, by American anti-liberals (like Revilo Oliver) rooted in 19th-century rationalism and materialism.

Yockey’s European Liberation Front nevertheless dissimulated ideas, especially relevant to our age of American decline, that have since found their way into the most advanced sections of Europe’s anti-liberal resistance: evident in Jean Thiriart’s Euronationalism, in the pan-Europeanism and anti-Americanism of Alain de Benoist’s Nouvelle Droite, in Robert Steuckers’ Euro-Synergies, and in numerous national-revolutionary tendencies beginning with Yockey, René Binet, Saint-Loup, and others in the late 1940s.[38]

Only in America, lacking an indigenous anti-liberal tradition and an organic bond to Europe’s living tradition, are his never-more-pertinent ideas still ignored.[39]

***

For the Vabanquespieler, the creation of a new European order (in the form of a Continental imperium stretching “from Galway to the Urals”) would entail a great, heroic undertaking, as the white men of the North, sworn to a transcendent idea, rallied to throw off an exhausted, putrefied, but nearly all-powerful Jewish-American system — citadel of world liberalism and hence the principal source of evil in the 20th and 21st centuries (more so even than England’s “evil empire” of the 18th and 19th centuries).

The Last Men of America’s consumer paradise may therefore think the distorters have tamed the forces of history and quieted the demands of destiny, but the American apostate knew better. He also knew that Americans could do better.

The beating of the [American] people into a thing of mass-ideals, mass-thinking, mass-conduct, mass-living, was a distortion . . . of the American’s [European] soul. Europe and America constituted a single spiritual unit whose life-aim was to actualize their common destiny.[40]

The coming Age of Absolute Politics, he prophesied, would again “summon forth the latent heroism of the American people.”

Inspired thus, the Vabanquespieler stood with valor against the Jew-run, liberal-capitalist, anti-European Mammon System that had become America.

***

In anticipating the next cycle of Western Destiny, Yockey’s life work bequeaths to New World Europeans a legacy affirming that “the old Gothic religious idea” is still latent in them and that the 21st century will be an age of European peace and order, if they are prepared to fight for it.

The “American ideology” may therefore have no future, but “the soul of the American people,” born of Europe, will be reborn with Europe’s assumption.[41]

Notes

1. Francis Parker Yockey, “The Tragedy of Youth” (1939), at http://home.alphalinks.com.au/~radnat/fpyockey/index [2].

2. Kerry Bolton, ed., Francis Parker Yockey and the ELF Frontfighter (Paraparaumu Beach, NZ: Renaissance Press, 1998), 14-15.

3. Francis Parker Yockey, The Enemy of Europe, trans. T. Francis (York, SC: Liberty Bell, 1981 [1953]), 3.

4. Kerry Bolton, ed., Varange: The Life and Thought of Francis Parker Yockey (Paraparaumu Beach: Renaissance Press, 1998), 31–39

5. Francis Parker Yockey, “The Proclamation of Europe of the European Liberation Front” (1949), at http://home.alphalinks.com.au/~radnat/fpyockey/index [2].

6. Ulick Varange (Francis Parker Yockey), Imperium: The Philosophy of History and Politics (Costa Mesa: Noontide Press, 1962 [1948]), 445.

7. Yockey, Imperium, 323.

8. Bryan Sykes, Saxons, Vikings, and Celts: The Genetic Roots of Britain and Ireland (New York: Norton, 2006).

9. Yockey, Imperium, 125–28, 134.

10. Revilo P. Oliver, The Enemy of Our Enemy (York, S.C.: Liberty Bell, 1981), 17.

11. This was the basis of Julius Evola’s critique of Yockey; see his “Spiritual and Structural Presuppositions of the European Union” (1951), at http://thompkins_cariou.tripod.com/id54.htm [3].

12. Yockey, Imperium, 345.

13. Yockey, Imperium, 43.

14. Oswald Spengler, Prussianism and Socialism [1919], trans. D. O. White, at http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/P%20Soc/Prussianism.Socialism.htm [4].

15. Yockey, The Enemy of Europe, 73.

16. Yockey, Imperium, 508.

17. Yockey, “The Proclamation of London.”

18. Francis Parker Yockey, “The Destiny of Europe” (1955), at http://home.alphalinks.com.au/~radnat/fpyockey/index [2].

19. Yockey, Imperium, 404.

20. Yockey, The Enemy of Europe, 23.

21. Francis Parker Yockey, “The World in Flames: An Estimate of the World Situation” (1961), at http://home.alphalinks.com.au/~radnat/fpyockey/index [2].

22. Yockey, “The World in Flames.”

23. Matthew Arnold, Culture and Anarchy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1960 [1869]).

24. Yockey The Enemy of Europe, 3.

25. Dirk Bavendamm, Roosevelts Krieg: Amerikanische Politik und Strategie 1937–1945 (Munich: Herbig, 1993).

26. Jörg Friedrich, The Fire: The Bombing of Germany 1940–1945, trans. A. Brown (New York: Columbia University Press, 2006); Maximilian Czesant, Europa im Bomben-Krieg 1939–1945 (Gras: Stocken, 1998).

27. Yockey, Imperium, 219, 545.

28. Yockey, Imperium, 574.

29. Giles MacDonogh, After the Reich: The Brutal History of the Allied Occupation (New York: Basic Books, 2007); James Bacque, Other Losses: An Investigation into the Mass Death of German POWs after World War Two, 2nd ed. (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1999); James Bacque, Crimes and Mercies: The Fate of German Civilians under Allied Occupation (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 2007); Ralph F. Keeling, Gruesome Harvest: The Costly Attempt to Exterminate the People of Germany (York, SC: Liberty Bell, 2004); Alfred M. De Zayas, A Terrible Revenge: The Ethnic Cleansing of the East European Germans (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1994).

30. Yockey, The Enemy of Europe, 47.

31. Yockey, Imperium, 192–93; The Enemy of Europe, 59.

32. Kerry Bolton, “Yockey and Russia: Lessons for the Present and Future from the Author of Imperium,” forthcoming.

33. Oswald Spengler, Prussianism and Socialism, §23.

34. Yockey, The Enemy of Europe, 19.

35. Yockey, The Enemy of Europe, 30. Cf. Jean Parvulesco, Dans la forêt de Fontainebleau (Paris: Alexipharmaque, 2007).

36. Kevin Coogan, Dreamer of the Day: Francis Parker Yockey and the Postwar Fascist International (Brooklyn: Automedia, 1999), 148–49. (Coogan misspells the word as “Vanbanquespieler.”)

37. Kevin Coogan, “Lost Imperium: The European Liberation Front (1949–54),”  Patterns in Prejudice XXXVI:3 (2002).

38. Francis Parker Yockey, Le prophète de l’Imperium (Paris: Avatar Éds., 2004), 15; Nicolas Lebourg, Le Monde vu de la plus Extrême Droite: Du fascisme au nationalisme-révolutionnaire (Perpignan: Presses Universitaires de Perpignan, 2010).

39. Cf. Ted Sallis, “The Overman High Culture: Future of the West,” http://www.counter-currents.com/2010/10/the-overman-high-culture-future-of-the-west/ [5].

40. Yockey, Imperium, 550–51.

41. Yockey, Imperium, 551; Raymond Abellio, Assomption de l’Europe (Paris: Flammarion, 1978 [1953]).

Source: The Occidental Quarterly, vol. 10, no. 4 (Winter 2010–2011); re-edited June 2013.

 


Article printed from Counter-Currents Publishing: http://www.counter-currents.com

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2013/08/the-jitterbugs-and-the-vabanquespieler-on-yockeys-america/

URLs in this post:

[1] Image: http://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/BentonDanceHall.jpg

[2] http://home.alphalinks.com.au/~radnat/fpyockey/index: http://home.alphalinks.com.au/~radnat/fpyockey/index

[3] http://thompkins_cariou.tripod.com/id54.htm: http://thompkins_cariou.tripod.com/id54.htm

[4] http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/P%20Soc/Prussianism.Socialism.htm: http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/P%20Soc/Prussianism.Socialism.htm

[5] http://www.counter-currents.com/2010/10/the-overman-high-culture-future-of-the-west/: http://www.counter-currents.com/2010/10/the-overman-high-culture-future-of-the-west/

lundi, 30 mai 2011

Elsa Darciel en Francis Parker Yockey: De Vlaamse danslegende

Elsa Darciel en Francis Parker Yockey: De Vlaamse danslegende

Prof. Dr. Piet TOMMISSEN

Ex: http://mededelingen.over-blog.com/

Darciel%20E.jpgElsa (niet: Elza) Dewette zag op 12 april 1903 te Sint-Amandsberg bij Gent het levenslicht. Ze was de kleindochter van Eduard Blaes (1846-1909), een verdienstelijke componist, dirigent en muziekleraar, bij wie haar vader pianoles had gevolgd. Afgaande op haar eigen getuigenis hoorde ze haar vader en haar grootvader vaak discuteren over de filosoof Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), over de dichter Heinrich Heine (1797-1856) en over de beroemde componist Richard Wagner (1813-1883). Volgens haar latere leerling Oscar Van Malder, zouden die discussies "een diepgaande invloed uitoefenen op haar later leven en werken"; verheft hij een hypothese niet tot de rang van een feit?

Vader Dewette, ingenieur van opleiding en onderdirecteur bij de Telefoon te Brussel, kreeg bij het uitbreken van W.O. I het bevel, de plannen van het telefoonnet van de provincie Brabant in veiligheid te brengen. Dat verklaart wellicht waarom hij met zijn gezin naar Engeland is uitgeweken. In ieder geval vestigde hij zich na heel wat ronddolen in een woning in een buitenwijk van Londen. Via een zus van de later wereldberoemd geworden historicus Arnold Toynbee (1889-1975), een goede bekende van vader Dewette, geraakte Elsa op de elitaire Kensington Highschool.

Haar peter, de bekende etser Jules De Bruycker (1870-1945), bewoonde hetzelfde gebouw als het gezin Dewette; hij enthousiasmeerde Elsa voor de plastische kunsten. Anderzijds schijnt de eminente Zwitserse avant-garde kunstenaar Emile Jaques-Dalcroze (1865-1950) haar op school het abc van de muziek én de basisgedachten van de eurytmie te hebben bijgebracht. Pianoles volgde ze bij miss Barber, een oud-leerlinge van de grote Johannes Brahms (1833-1897) en verwant met de Amerikaanse componist Samuel Barber (1910-1981). Doch die artistieke impulsen verhinderden haar blijkbaar niet, zich voor de exacte wetenschappen te interesseren. In een interview vertelde ze het ingangsexamen chemie van de universiteit van Londen probleemloos overleefd te hebben.

Elsa bleef na de oorlog nog een jaar in Londen, om haar middelbare studies af te sluiten. Helaas werd dat einddiploma in België niet erkend. Van lieverlede kwam ze in een Franstalige Brusselse school terecht en dat werd een fiasco, want in Engeland had ze haar Frans verleerd! In oktober 1920 schakelde ze over naar de (eveneens Franstalige) Academie en volgde er drie jaar tereke als dagstudente de lessen van de in Watermaal-Bosvoorde woonachtige symbolistische schilder Constant Montald (1862-1946). Op een bepaald ogenblik kreeg August Vermeylen (1872-1945) het er zwaar te verduren: zijn inzet voor de vernederlandsing van de Gentse universiteit werd door zijn franskiljonse collegae, waaronder de beroemde architect Victor Horta (1861-1947), de directeur, niet geappreciëerd. Elsa nam het voor hem op en werd aldus van vandaag op morgen populair in Vlaamse studentenmiddens: ze werd tot penningmeester van de afdeling Brussel van het Diets Studentenverbond gebombardeerd, een functie die ze vier jaar heeft waargenomen.

Van 1924 tot in 1931 was Elsa Dewette als tekenares tewerk gesteld bij een weekblad voor dames, voor hetwelk ze tevens de bekende acteur Douglas Fairbanks (ps. van Elton Ulman; 1883-1939) en de als "de kleine verloofde van Amerika" bekend staande actrice Mary Pickford (ps. van Gladys Smith; 1893-1979) geïnterviewd heeft. In 1922 gebeurde echter iets dat haar leven een beslissende wending zou geven: toevallig woonde ze in de Parkschouwburg te Brussel een optreden bij van Isadora Duncan (1877-1927). De schok was dermate groot dat ze daarna drie dagen met koorts te bed heeft gelegen!

De gracieuze bewegingen van Isadora Duncan, waarin de danseres als het ware haar ziel blootlegde, konden de zich voor danskunst interesserende Elsa Dewette niet onverschillig laten; ze realiseerde zich te maken te hebben met een concrete toepassing van de danshervorming die Jean Georges Noverre (1727-1810) gepredikt en wiens Lettres sur la danse et sur les ballets (1760) ze bestudeerd had. Na de danseres in Brussel aan het werk te hebben gezien, heeft ze met haar een paar gesprekken gevoerd op haar kamer in het Brusselse hotel Métropole aan het de Brouckèreplein. Meer nog: met de opbrengst van de verkoop van geërfde aandelen kon ze in 1927 in Nice bij haar idool dansles volgen. Wie weet hoe haar leven zou verlopen zijn, mocht de beroemde sterdanseres niet in de loop van datzelfde jaar zijn overleden?

Elsa's besluit lag hoe dan ook reeds vast: ze wou en ze zou met een eigen dansschool van start gaan. De ouders waarschuwden haar: waarom een veilig bestaan aan een onzekere toekomst opofferen? Vandaar dat het tot 1930 geduurd heeft alvorens de grote stap gezet werd. Aan de Folkwangschule in Essen heeft ze een zomercursus gevolgd bij Kurt Jooss (1901-1979), eerst leerling en dan assistent van Rudolf Laban von Vàralja, beter beken als Rudolf von Laban (1879-1958), wiens theorie hij in de de praktijk toepaste; ze was vergezeld van twee dames die in Vlaanderen ook hun weg als danseres hebben gemaakt: Lea Daan (ps. van Paula Gombert; 1906-1995) en Isa Voss (ps. van Maria Voorspoels; 1909-1939).

In 1930 bracht Elsa op de voorgevel van haar woning (Kruisstraat 8 te Elsene) een koperen plaat aan met de indicatie: "Elsa Darciel - School voor Eurythmie". Bijgevolg moet ze rond die tijd voor het pseudoniem Darciel geopteerd hebben. Sommige auteurs beweren dat die schuilnaam door haar leerlingen bedacht werd. Elsa's eigen versie klinkt logischer: de naam zou afgeleid zijn van d'Arcielle, de naam van een oud-tante die in de tijd van de Franse Revolutie leefde.

Toen in 1932 vrij regelmatig gemiddeld vijftien leerlingen opdaagden, besloot de nieuwbakken Darciel alles op alles te zetten: ze huurde in Brussel de zaal van het Paleis voor Schone Kunsten (thans: Bozar) af! Maurits Wynants schrijft: "Het werd een triomf." Geen wonder dat ze de krachttoer in 1934 herhaalde, dit keer met een eigen creatie van het ballet Heer Halewijn op muziek van de door de musicoloog Charles Van den Borren (1872-1966) aangepaste Boergondische Hofdansen. De pers jubelde: "Een nieuwe vorm van dans met internationale allures is in België geboren."

dansku4.jpgDaarna volgde de grote stap, die erop gericht was gans Vlaanderen te veroveren. Met Herman Teirlinck (1879-1967) als animator begon in Aalst een ware triomftocht. Het heeft geen zin de vele successen op te sommen, daar ze in de kranten breed uitgesmeerd zijn geworden. De uitzondering bevestigt de algemene regel en dus maak ik twee uitzonderingen: in 1939 voerden op de Grote Markt te Kortrijk 1.500 danseressen en dansers 10 dagen lang het Vredesspel op en in 1944 grepen talrijke opvoeringen van Tijl Uilenspiegel op muziek van Richard Strauss (1864-1949) plaats. Bij de Bevrijding kende haar vader moeilijkheden omdat een hogere Duitse officier hem een bezoek had gebracht (cf. infra). Zij zelf reisde begin 1946 naar de U.S.A., bezocht er in diverse steden familieleden en vrienden, en hield lezingen in de Engelse taal (cf. infra).

Na haar terugkeer einde 1947 begon - dixit Jacques De Leger (°1932) - "haar belangrijkste creatieve periode". Inderdaad, van 1952 af trad ze, dit keer in opdracht van de dienst Volksontwikkeling, overal in den lande op en monteerde ze balletuitzendingen voor de televisie. Bovendien gaf ze aan diverse scholen onderricht in bewegingsleer. In 1965 hield ze het voor bekeken: ze had in de loop der voorbije 35 jaar niet minder dan 400 balletavonden georganiseerd en zowat 35 grote balletten gecreëerd! Doch zonder dralen vatte ze de studie van de Spaanse taal aan, die ze na vijf jaar afsloot. Ook maakte ze van een haar in december 1963 door de universiteit van Cambridge afgeleverd diploma gebruik om geïnteresseerde E.E.G.- ambtenaren Engels bij te brengen.

Op 89-jarige leeftijd werd in Tervuren haar huurcontract opgezegd en stond Elsa op straat. Toen heeft iemand ervoor gezorgd dat haar archief niet op het stort belandde.

Zelf belandde ze op een eenpersoonskamer in Ukkel, terwijl haar bezittingen (vooral de bibliotheek) bij een hulpvaardige ziel terechtkwamen en sindsdien verdwenen zijn. Uiteindelijk kwam ze in het rusthuis Weyveldt in Hofstade (bij Aalst) terecht, alwaar ze begin 1998 vreedzaam overleden is.

Deze aflevering steunt uitsluitend op de voortreffelijke biografie van K. Coogan, Dreamer of the Day. Francis Parker Yockey and the Postwar Fascist International (Brooklyn, NY: Autonomedia, 1999, 644 p.)

yockey.jpgF.P. Yockey werd in 1917 in Chicago geboren. Al vroegtijdig ontpopte hij zich als een goede pianist en gold hij als een begaafde humorist. In de herfst van 1934 kwam hij op de University of Michigan (Ann Arbor) terecht. Hier werd hij uit een Saulus een Paulus, d.w.z. hij gaf zijn pro-communistische overtuiging prijs en werd bij wijze van spreken een Amerikaanse nazi. Die ommezwaai wordt toegeschreven aan zijn lectuur van Der Untergang des Abendlandes, het tweedelige opus magnum van de Duitse historicus en niet-nazi Oswald Spengler (1880-1936), doch het is een uitgemaakte zaak dat hij door de spengleriaans getinte Kulturgeschichte der Neuzeit (3 delen; 1927-31) van de Oostenrijkse Jood Egon Friedell (eig. Friedmann; 1878-1938 [zelfmoord]) tot de overtuiging was gekomen, dat niet materiële factoren, doch ideeën het historisch verloop bepalen. De ironie van het lot heeft dus gewild dat twee eminente Europese niet-nazis onrechtstreeks een Amerikaanse nazi hebben voortgebracht!

Wat er ook van zij, in 1936 schakelde Yockey over naar de katholieke Georgetown University (Washington); hij immatriculeerde in het aan deze universiteit verbonden Center for Strategic and International Studies. Als reden geeft Coogan zijn belangstelling op voor het verband tussen internationaal recht en buitenlandse politiek. Meteen begon hij zich te begeesteren voor de geopolitiek, meer bepaald voor de doctrine die Karl Haushofer (1869-1946) verkondigde en die door één van zijn professoren, de pater jezuïet Edmund Aloysius Walsh (1885-1956), bestreden werd. Interessant om weten: diezelfde pater doceerde ook - andermaal afwijzend - over de theorieën van de hoger vermelde Carl Schmitt. Voor de tweede keer zorgde de ironie van het lot voor een verrassing: na W.O. II heeft Yockey zowel Haushofer als Schmitt misbruikt.

Zijn diploma behaalde Yockey cum laude in 1941 aan de rechtsfaculteit van de door jezuïeten gerunde Loyola University (Chicago), na tussendoor aan de Northwestern Law School (Chicago) college te hebben gelopen. Al dan niet onder schuilnaam geraakte hij bij rechtse initiatieven betrokken. Er mag niet uit het oog worden verloren dat rechts en zelfs fascisme op dat ogenblik ook in de U.S.A. nogal wat aanhangers hadden; het is denkbaar dat de optie van de wereldwijd bewonderde industrieel Henry Ford (1863-1947) en deze van de zeer populaire vliegenier Charles Lindbergh (1902-1974) daar niet vreemd aan zijn geweest.

Zoals talloze Amerikanen was Yockey gekant tegen de Amerikaanse militaire interventie, wat hem niet belet heeft in mei 1942 soldaat te worden. Maar in "een lijst van deloyale of subversieve personen die door het Sixth Service Command ervan verdacht werden nazis te zijn" figureert Yockeys naam! Op de begrijpelijke vraag "Was Yockey een nazi-spion?" antwoordt Coogan voorzichtig, dat het er de schijn van heeft, dat hij geen "spion in de gebruikelijke zin van het woord" was. Hij is twee maanden voortvluchtig geweest (in de terminologie van het Amerikaanse leger: AWOL = Absent Without Official Leave - in mijn ogen een eufemisme). Niettemin werd hem om geneeskundige redenen op 13 juli 1943 eervol ontslag verleend.

Anno 1946 kreeg Yockey een job aangeboden in een rechtbank in Wiesbaden die zich over de oorlogsmisdaden van tweederangsnazis uit te spreken had.

Het staat nu wel vast dat zijn door zijn overste genoteerde chronisch absenteïsme te maken had én met zwarte-markt-praktijken (sigaretten!) én met het schrijven van artikels tegen de legitimiteit van de processen van Nürnberg. Eind november 1946 werd hij aan de deur gezet. Reeds in 1947 was Yockey evenwel terug in Europa: in het Ierse dorp Brittas Bay schreef hij in zes maanden Imperium. The Philosophy of History and Politics, dat hij onder het pseudoniem Ulrick Varange uitgaf.

Ik verzaak aan een poging om dit inhoudelijk zonder Spengler, Schmitt en Haushofer ondenkbaar opus in enkele regels te willen samenvatten. Over de vaak in de illegaliteit opererende neo-nazistische organisaties, die in een soort van Internationale schijnen te hebben samengewerkt, ga ik het evenmin hebben. Niet eens Yockeys curieuze samenwerking met senator Joe McCarthy (1908-1957), de man van de anti-communistische kruistocht in de U.S.A. (mccarthysm) die zelfs de filmacteur Charles Spencer Chaplin (1889-1977) niet spaarde, zijn gesprekken met groten der aarde zoals de Egyptische president Gamel Abdul Nasser (1918-1970) breng ik te berde, zomin als zijn poging om op Cuba Fidel Castro (°1927) te ontmoeten. Het zijn stuk voor stuk themata die niets te zien hebben met het onderwerp van mijn bijdrage. Doch ik kan onder dit sub-kapittel geen streep trekken zonder iets te hebben gezegd over Yockeys einde.

Jarenlang liep hij met vervalste paspoorten rond en kon op die manier de FBI (= Federal Bureau of Investigation) telkens om de tuin leiden. Wegens een mechanisch defect werd zijn vliegtuig zekere dag omgeleid en "In de verwarring had hij zijn handtas niet tijdig kunnen meenemen". Zo kon het gebeuren dat het niets vermoedende personeel deze handtas opende om de eigenaar en zijn adres te achterhalen en een resem paspoorten vond met telkens de foto van dezelfde man! Het FBI werd verwittigd maar het heeft nog even geduurd alvorens vaststond dat men Yockey te pakken had. In zijn cel slikte de lang gezochte man op 17 juni 1960 een capsule gevuld met kaliumcyanide. Zelfmoord? Of heeft iemand hem die capsule bezorgd? Men is er niet in geslaagd de waarheid te achterhalen.

Toen ik het in het vorige sub-kapittel vermelde boek over Yockey begon te lezen, had ik er geen flauw vermoeden van dat ik één en ander zou te weten komen over een episode uit het leven van Elsa Darciel, een episode waarop de titel van de eersteling (1970) van de Amerikaanse auteur Erich Segal (°1937) toepasselijk is: Love story. In het personenregister staan enkel 'Dewette, Elsa' en 16 vindplaatsen vermeld, zodat ik niet onmiddellijk de link met Darciel legde. Plots las ik echter een paragraaf waarin Dewettes leven (correct!) samengevat wordt en besefte dat de brieven van Darciel voor Coogan gesneden brood moeten zijn geweest. Ze zijn evenwel niet aan hem gericht, doch aan Keith Stimely, die in de periode 1982-85 de negationistische Journal of Historical Review heeft uitgegeven en het plan had opgevat aan Yockey een boek te wijden.

FPYIMPERIUM.jpgStimely werd helaas in december 1992 het slachtoffer van aids, zonder "ooit een bladzijde van zijn geplande Yockey biografie" te hebben geschreven.

De Darciel-brieven (een 80-tal) kwamen in het bezit van Coogan. Deze in de jaren 1981-85 geschreven antwoorden bevatten informatie over gebeurtenissen in Brussel na de Bevrijding, over Yockey in het algemeen, en tenslotte over haar love story met Yockey.

Over wat er in 1944 bij de Bevrijding van Brussel gebeurd is, vult Darciel het weinige aan dat ik hoger heb verteld. Die hogere Duitse officier, een kennis van haar vader, is verschillende keren bij haar ouders gaan dineren: de nodige en voldoende voorwaarde voor weerstanders om in de ouderlijke woning brand te stichten, zodat vader ("een groot bewonderaar van Hitler" - dixit Darciel zelf) en moeder tijdelijk elders een onderkomen moesten zoeken. De deur van haar eigen huis werd beschilderd met hakenkruizen; ze dook korte tijd onder, ging toen voorzichtig een kijkje nemen in haar dansschooltje maar werd door de politie opgepakt en verhoord. Om erger te voorkomen is ze dan, zoals supra vermeld, naar de U.S.A. getrokken.

Wat Yockey aanbelangt, valt op dat Darciel zich inspant om bepaalde beweringen over haar lover te weerleggen, op basis van door deze opgediste versies; ze doet dat soms met de nodige omzichtigheid. Ik zeg 'soms', want er zijn uitzonderingen, omdat in die gevallen omzichtigheid overbodige luxe ware geweest. Zo heeft Yockey rond zijn veertiende levensjaar een auto-ongeval gehad (met traumatische gevolgen, schrijft Coogan), dat volgens een dame een loopbaan als concert-pianist onmogelijk maakte, een conclusie die Darciel naar fabeltjesland verwijst: omzichtigheid had in dit geval geen zin, daar ze de vaardigheid van haar lover gemakkelijk kon testen. Yockey blijkt alleszins een slechte chauffeur te zijn geweest; in Beieren reed hij eens zodanig roekeloos dat het geen haar heeft gescheeld of het duo was dodelijk verongelukt. Geloofwaardig is m.i. ook de passus over zijn vader, een "noceur... qui aimait beaucoup les petites femmes" (in het Frans in Elsa's brief). Hetzelfde geldt voor de schizofrenie waardoor zijn eervol ontslag uit het leger werd gemotiveerd: hij deed Darciel in een hilarische lach uitbarsten door de comedie na te bootsen die hij te zijner tijd opgevoerd had, want die schizofrenie was "a hilarious fake" geweest.

Een complete verrassing - althans voor mij - was (en is) het feit dat Yockey met een boek van Hans Blüher (1888-1955) schijnt gedweept te hebben. In maart 1950 vertaalde hij immers, ten behoeve van Darciel, het tweede deel in het Engels, "omdat haar kennis van het Duits, bij gebrek aan oefening, ietwat wazig was geworden". Darciel moet die tekst evenmin onverschillig hebben gelaten, want in een brief aan Stimely copiëerde ze twee paragrafen uit Yockeys vertaling. Voorwaar een voor de ideeëngeschiedenis niet onaardig detail.

En nu Darciels love story! Ze valt met de deur in huis: "in 1949 ontmoette ik FPY: een mijlpaal in mijn leven." Twee obscure journalisten, niet goed wetende wat ze met de in Brussel opgedoken Yockey moesten aanvangen, vonden er niets beter op dan hem mee te nemen naar de woning van een "(niet bijzonder goede) Vlaamse schilder, vermoedelijk een vriend van hen, die er vage 'Europese' ideeën op na hield. De woning van deze schilder lag in een dorp genaamd Watermaal-Bosvoorde, in een straat vlak bij deze waar mijn ouders woonden. Toevallig bezocht ik die namiddag mijn ouders en daar vader gevraagd was aan die samenkomst deel te nemen (hij kende de schilder), werd ik verzocht mee te gaan om eventueel bij het vertalen behulpzaam te zijn. ... De schilder kende noch Frans noch Engels, Y nauwelijks wat Frans."

Ik citeer verder: " ... Mijn eerste indruk van Y? Hij had veel weg van een mengeling van een terrorist en een geïllumineerde predikant! ... Plots stond Y recht en zei dat hij een korte wandeling wilde maken met mijn vader en mij. ... Hij gebruikte dat voorwendsel enkel om met mij alleen te zijn, en mijn vader was niet van gisteren. Na de 'korte wandeling', ... vroeg Y of ik hem een lift naar de stad kon geven. ... In werkelijkheid kon hij nergens heen. Evenmin had hij geld. Dat is de zuivere waarheid - wat kon de arme Elsa doen: hem mee naar huis nemen natuurlijk." Y kreeg te eten en begon een uiteenzetting te geven over zijn boek Imperium. Tot Darciel het welletjes vond en hem naar haar grote piano loodste, waarop hij zich kon uitleven.

Het onvermijdelijke gebeurde: "Plots verloren we elke notie van de werkelijkheid. Ik kan het soort van opwinding, dat bezit van me nam, niet verklaren. Nooit had ik dit meegemaakt en - daar ben ik zeker van - hij evenmin." Enkele dagen verliepen, gedurende dewelke Y niet van zich liet horen en Darciel meende dat hij afgereisd was. Doch daags voor haar 46ste verjaardag stond hij almeteens voor de deur. Samen reden ze per auto weg: "Die nacht werden we minnaars." In juni 1949 begon het koppel aan een reis naar Beieren, die haar achteraf tot het schrijven van een bladzijdenlange en bijzonder interessante terugblik verleidde. Darciel bekende voorts, dat Y - steeds in 1949 - een huwelijk voorstelde, zelfs verschillende keren: "hij had zoals gebruikelijk volkomen over het hoofd gezien dat hij reeds getrouwd was."

Om een lang verhaal kort te maken, terugblikkend schreef Darciel in een brief aan Stimely: "Wat onze relatie zelf betreft, niets kon ooit veranderen: ze begon met een felle geestelijke intensiteit (het was bijna een mystieke ervaring), ze ontwikkelde zich tot een wederzijdse passie en ze eindigde nagenoeg in een tragedie." Het initiatief om aan de relatie een einde te maken, is van Darciel uitgegaan; het leeftijdsverschil (veertien jaar) kan bij die beslissing de doorslag hebben gegeven. Toch werden sporadisch nog brieven gewisseld.

Ik zou op de bovenstaande live story nooit hebben kunnen attenderen, indien Elsa Darciel ze zelf niet zou hebben verteld. En ik zou er geen ruchtbaarheid aan gegeven hebben, indien ze deze episode uit haar leven niet op papier had gezet, wetende dat haar informatie voor een biografie van Yockey ging dienen. Ik beroep me op Coogan: "Dewette schreef haar brieven met de bedoeling dat ze in een biografie [van Yockey] zouden gebruikt worden." En toch kon ik een bepaalde schroom niet overwinnen en ben bewust zeer selectief tewerk gegaan.

*

Rest de vraag waar die briefwisseling gebleven is? Darciels brieven bevinden zich alleszins in de U.S.A., maar ik heb geen poging ondernomen om Yockey-biograaf Kevin Coogan te contacteren. Doch wat is er gebeurd met Yockeys brieven? De laatste, twee dagen voor zijn einde, op 14 juni 1960 in San Francisco gepost, eindigt met de woorden "Te vernietigen", waar Darciel tussen haakjes bijvoegt: "wat ik helaas gedaan heb." Heeft ze meteen alle brieven vernietigd? En later ook die van Stimely? Vermits bij ons niemand hun bestaan schijnt te kennen, is men geneigd die vraag positief te beantwoorden. Maar men weet nooit...

Prof. em. dr., Piet TOMMISSEN

Dit is een enigszins ingekorte versie, met weglating van de voetnoten, van de tekst verschenen in de Mededelingen 137 de dato 30 april 2009.

Info over abonnementen op de tweewekelijkse elektronische PDF-versie of op de papieren editie van de Mededelingen: hfj@skynet.be