Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie Key
I might be wrong on this but wasn't Yockey a bit ahead of his time? From what I understand, Yockey very early on was against the US while many other nationalists and 'Nazis' (primarily those who were obsessed with Communism) at the time were propagating and working for the US; see post-WW2 Ukraine for example. He also recognized the legitimacy of the Arab movements who were against Israel and Zionism.
My impression of nationalists after WW2 is that most of them were positive towards the US, and against the Soviet Union. History, to me, has shown us that, that wasn't necessarily the correct position really.
|
After WW2, Communism was like the "Islam" of its time. The Nationalist movement worldwide split into two camps: those that sought to side with America and the "free world" and those who realized that the USSR and Warsaw Pact countries were (politically and culturally) dejudaizing and nowhere near as degenerate or internally anti-white as the West was. Not a surprise that it was during the 50's and 60's that all the red diaper kike babies began formulating modern American "conservatism".
Basically, the movement in Yockey's time suffered from similar weaknesses as the one now: reaction vs revolution. Not to mention being a "fascist" working for NATO and America was far more profitable and safe.
Today you see the equivalent of the first camp manifesting as groups like Pegida, who wave American and Israeli flags in "protest of Islam", despite the entire refugee crisis being orchestrated by these two very forces.
Looking towards the Soviets and the various nationalist revolutionaries they were open to supporting worldwide (Qaddaffi, Arafat, Nasser) was thinking outside of the box at the time. The Soviets , Qaddaffi, etc were very willing to work with and fund genuine European nationalists, Nick Griffin and Roberto Fiore for example, but by and large this never took off because of crass reaction or inability to put aside bigotry of many nationalists.