Silver Shirts and EAIF

A tale of two groups.

A popular meme in Der Movement for many decades – and today particularly popular among the mainstreaming “Amnats” – is that “paramilitary type groups wearing uniforms is a European thing and has never been a part of, or accepted in, America and so any group that does so is automatically doomed to failure.” 

Well, that paradigm not only confuses descriptive and prescriptive outlooks, and also commits the is/ought – naturalistic fallacy, but is factually incorrect.

See this. 

The group declined because of the founder’s megalomania and failed political ambitions, the fact that they couldn’t outfight leftist thug street brawlers, and, in the end, the group was eliminated through government persecution. It did not fail because of any innate problem with the concept.  It did not fail because it was a "paramilitary group" that "wore uniforms." If failed as part of the general pattern of failure on the Right since, well, virtually forever.

It failed, but so has EVERY Far Right endeavor over the last 100 years.  Blaming the failure on “uniforms” or “paramilitary formations” is misdirection and is mendacious.  In its time, the Silver Legion was reasonably successful, it did attract Americans, and with more sound leadership, and without an ultra-left, pro-Soviet federal government as System opposition, it may have achieved more.  Obviously, the start of WWII, with the "red" FDR administration supporting the wrong side, didn't help the fortunes of the Silver Legion.

Who has done better?  Has the plain clothes Alt Right brigade achieved any victories?  What about the cosplay Alt Lite brigade?  

Ironically, we have an example of a uniform-wearing (of sorts) paramilitary organization today that seems reasonably successful – the Far Left Antifa.  True, it helps that they are part of the System, sort of the paramilitary branch of the big business-woke capital-media-academia-political left alliance. But we also have the paradox of the Left, which supports affirmative action in society, practicing meritocracy as regards its own leadership; while the Right, which claims to oppose affirmative action and support meritocracy in society, practices a radically extreme and rigid affirmative action policy for its own leadership. That difference explains much with respect to relative success.

Some may argue against my fulminations about the “movement’s” ethnic affirmative action program by citing Lou Calabro and the European American Issues Forum (EAIF), a pro-White group that failed and one that was co-founded by Calabro and led by him for a significant portion of its existence (Calabro being an Italian-American).

One could of course make the “it’s the exception that proves the rule” counter-argument, and, given the historical dominance of Der Movement by the Quota Queens, their record of endless tragicomic failure, and the underlying “movement” dogma supporting the affirmative action program, that counter-argument is justified.  However, I will go further.

Since I do not want to be again accused by the Quota Queens of being a “low information moralizer,” I will stick to citing facts and impression that I am aware of first hand and/or that which were publicly reported.  I do not know all of the inner details of why the group failed, so I’ll stick to things I know.  I will make four comments:

1. Whatever faults he may have had an EAIF leader, Mr. Calabro was a sincere Individual, who tried his best.  He was not involved in this endeavor for “glory” or for grifting (he was a retired police detective, if I recall correctly).

2. Calabro was being undermined constantly by people who disapproved of his ethnic heritage. During the time when there was a “power struggle” for EAIF leadership (settled by voting, if I remember correctly), much of this came out.  People were sending out emails attacking Calabro for his ancestry, not his actions.  This I definitely know to have occurred. 

3. At one point, McNallen (whose ideology I do not support but who, like Calabro, is, I believe, sincere) took over the EAIF leadership and he – who was of course ethnically acceptable to all sides – was in fact (in my opinion) doing a good job, and the group was showing promise. McNallen resigned because of cancer and also because he had become disillusioned with the viability of the group’s strategy.  I believe that Calabro had to take over again; he cannot be blamed for that situation.

4. There was a lot of incompetence in the lower rungs of the group’s administrative structure.  If you want to blame top leadership for that you can, but they were working with the human material at hand.

In any case, in my opinion, the EAIF had much potential, and probably would be more viable now than it was back then (with the right leadership and human material).