Rational vs. Irrational Fascism

Another look at fascist ideology.

Previously, I objected to Quigley’s description of fascism as “irrational" - 

[Side note – I do not like Quigley’s correlating fascist states and movements to irrationality in the sense he does – while such movements were opposed to hyper-rationalism of modernity, they were not irrational in the sense of what was best for the nation and ethny and the organization of society had many positive rational aspects. I would argue that modern liberal democracy is truly irrational].

There are two basic issues here.  First, the definition of irrational.  Second, what do we mean by fascism?

Let’s consider this definition of irrationality:

Irrationality is cognition, thinking, talking, or acting without inclusion of rationality. It is more specifically described as an action or opinion given through inadequate use of reason, or through emotional distress or cognitive deficiency. The term is used, usually pejoratively, to describe thinking and actions that are, or appear to be, less useful, or more illogical than other more rational alternatives.

Irrational behaviors of individuals include taking offense or becoming angry about a situation that has not yet occurred, expressing emotions exaggeratedly (such as crying hysterically), maintaining unrealistic expectations, engaging in irresponsible conduct such as problem intoxication, disorganization, and falling victim to confidence tricks. People with a mental illness like schizophrenia may exhibit irrational paranoia.

These more contemporary normative conceptions of what constitutes a manifestation of irrationality are difficult to demonstrate empirically because it is not clear by whose standards we are to judge the behavior rational or irrational.

The last part is in my opinion crucial to this discussion – it is difficult to definitively define political behavior as irrational given the problem of “whose standards” and the intense nature of political identification. Hence, it is just very easy to simply label your opposition as “irrational” as contrasted to your own “rationality.”

What about:

Irrationality is cognition, thinking, talking, or acting without inclusion of rationality.

What’s “rationality?”  Thus, we see controversy and subjectivity there as well, so defining “irrationality” as the absence of “rationality” is not helpful if we are unable to clearly define “rationality.”

One (somewhat vague) definition of “rationality” that conforms to the manner most people use the term is beliefs and/or behavior (e.g., a decision-making process) based (predominantly or completely) on the use of (verifiable) facts, logic, and consideration of consequences in pursuit of some objective(s) that is (theoretically) achievable and that would enhance the status and/or well-being of some (verifiably) real entity or entities (or useful mental constructs of such). “Irrationality” would therefore be beliefs and/or behavior that does not conform to that described above.

This then comes back to the issue of subjective standards, since I am sure most fascists would consider their beliefs and behavior as conforming to ethnic, racial, social, political, and historical realities and that the objectives pursued would enhance the status and well-being of the group or groups involved. Anti-fascists would disagree, and then one would have to do a “deep dive” into fascist ideology and its consequences, and each step of that analysis would, no doubt, be steeped in controversy. I suppose that the “irrationality” of fascism would be ascribed to, e.g., the emotionality inherent in many of its manifestations, including a “mystical” (sic) tie to blood and soil, as well as the alleged “irrationality” of certain palingenetic objectives, which would not always correlate to the types of issues (e.g., economic growth, peace, human rights) of interest to classical liberalism.  One could also ascribe “irrationality” to certain fascist critiques of modernism, materialism, and, not surprisingly, to a purely rational approach to life, even though there may well be – from the fascist perspective – rational reasons for such beliefs.

From a pro-fascist standpoint, given ethnic genetic interests, one could aver that fascism is more adaptive than are Universalist ideologies, although Salter did criticize fascism for an ultimately self-defeating over-investment in ethny (perhaps an example of “irrational” behavior).  Thus, the hyper-nationalism of fascism led to expansionist militarism, destructive warfare, and the mobilization of other states to crush fascism, leaving the fascist states arguably worse off than before. But does the fact that this over-investment took place stand as evidence of fascist irrationality? Note that it is unlikely that Mussolini would have conducted aggression within Europe in the absence of Hitler’s influence; further, the other fascist movements in Europe did not have expansionist militarism has part of their ideology.  Indeed, “fascist militarism” essentially was a Nazi legacy, and had as much, or more, to do with Hitler’s fixations, and to historical German militarism, than to any inherent characteristic (“irrational” or otherwise) of fundamental fascism.

Perhaps it would help to look at definitions of fascism itself. Griffin’s description of fascism as palingenetic ultra-nationalism is a good starting point.  We can then tackle some of the ideas of Maurice Bardeche on this topic.

See this.

The characteristics of fascism, we have seen, are disputable, and only a small number of those we have examined have been retained in a logical definition of fascism. The single party, police methods, propaganda, Caesarism, the very presence of a Führer are not necessarily attributes of fascism; still less an alliance with reactionary politics, the refusal of control and open membership to the masses, the inevitability of prestige operations and military raids.

A firm and stable direction of the nation, the primacy of the national interest over private interests, the necessity of a discipline loyally accepted by the country, are the true political foundations of fascism, those that emerge from its very definition. 

That seems reasonably rational to me, from the standpoint of the well-being of nation-state and ethny.

Power may be exercised in a fascist state by a central committee, a council, or a junta as well as by a designated leader; such rule need not be brutal and abusive. It can also be tolerant and supple. The essential political instrument of fascism is the role that it grants to a minority of disinterested and committed militants capable of leading by the example of their own lives and to bear the message of a just, loyal, and honesty polity. The famous fascist methods are thus constantly and ceaselessly reevaluated. What is more important than mechanisms is the idea that fascism has of man and freedom.

So far, that all can be consistent with rationality.

See this.

Democracy puts no limits on freedom beyond prohibiting harm to others. Democrats are quick to discover that one might harm the government without harming others, and their codes are filled with political offenses. But they have never admitted that without harming others individually, one can still harm the nation as a whole through the abuse of freedom.

Such harm from democracy would be irrational, no?

Fascism opposes this anarchic concept of freedom with a social conception of freedom. It does not permit that which harms the nation. It permits everything else. It is wrong to believe that it is in the spirit of fascism to limit individual freedom or freedom of thought. Nothing has changes in the everyday life of a country when it becomes fascist: contrary to the famous saying, when someone rings the doorbell at seven o’clock, it must be the milkman…

…Fascism recognizes this irreplaceable mystique of achievement. It is a sign of degeneration when the worship of a man is substituted for the task to be accomplished and when the nation nourished with nothing more than words, authority without a program, portraits disguised as principles: it is nothing more than a donkey with a policeman trailing behind him.

Thus, fascism leads to a different social morality than democracy, and it seeks to develop a human type that the democracies ignore or combat. Just because fascism nurtures different values than does liberal democracy does not mean that the former is “irrational” (an idea that assumes liberal democracy is “rational”).

The democrats believe in the natural goodness of man, in progress as the course of history. They think that all parts of the personality merit equal development. For them, the state does not make men moral, it merely teaches them to read; education is a panacea that can work miracles. Democracy does not intervene to establish its own image of man. Its fine ideal exists nowhere. One cannot even say that the men in charge choose subjects to suit their agenda, like leaders of seminars. Democracy is only concerned with diplomas. Democracy distributes awards for excellence. She places her best pupils in the Pantheon. But in 100 years, she has not produced a single hero.

Fascists do not believe in the natural goodness of man; they do not believe that progress is the irreversible direction of history. They have this ambitious idea that man has the power to create, at least in part, his own destiny.

I suppose that the strict materialists and liberal democrats believe that talk of “destiny” is “irrational” – but it seems to me that creating destiny through an act of will is more rational than a fatalistic attitude of passively accepting whatever comes and/or merely pursuing short-term hedonistic materialism or trusting in “Fate” or “God."

See this.

The purpose of the fascist state is to shape men according to a particular model. Unlike democratic states, fascist states do not hesitate to teach morals. Fascists think that the will and energy available to the nation are its most precious capital. They make it their highest priority to encourage the collective qualities that shape and preserve the national energy. They seek to develop such national qualities as discipline, a taste for order, love of work, the sense of duty and honor. In the practice of everyday tasks, these national moral principles are expressed in a sense of responsibility, a sense of solidarity, awareness of duties of command, the feeling of being at home in an accepted order and in an important task.

That also sounds quite rational.   

Is developing The New Man to build The Moral State rational or irrational?  I would say that regardless of your subjective opinion on that, The New Man and The Moral State can be harnessed to achieve rational objectives; hence, they are ultimately rational with respect to ends (even if not always with respect to means).

It would seem therefore that fascism, in its essence, and apart from the particular manifestation of Nazism, was not especially irrational. Indeed, how is fascism any more irrational than its main competitors?  Liberal democracy disguises the power of an oligarchic plutocracy behind the veneer of popular sovereignty, and is currently undergoing self-immolation due to a tidal wave of demographic and cultural destruction.  Communism resulted in millions of dead, gulag states, economic depression, and pseudoscientific ideas like Lysenkoism.

One wonders if the particular focus on fascism being “irrational” has more to do with its underlying mythos than with its actual real-world manifestation. In contrast, both liberal democracy and communism are perceived as being (ostensibly) based on “rational” materialistic considerations, such as economics, happiness for the greatest numbers, etc. derived from “Enlightenment values,” while fascism with its focus on primal values of “caveman nationalism" (blood and soil) and with non-quantifiable, non-materialistic considerations of palingenesis, national glory, and The New Man, sounds ever-so-irrational  After all, one can have a quantifiable “rational” Five Year Plan for socialist production but not a similarly materialistic Five Year Plan for palingenetic overcoming and national glory. Unlike liberal democracy and communism, fascism is not an ideology for the bean-counters of a managerial elite, hence it is seemingly based upon non-quantifiable “irrational” urges.

But some in the mainstream have defended the irrational as part of existentialist authenticity, a concept that can be extended to the race question.  And can’t irrational urges be harnessed to achieve rational objectives?

See this:

…a call to “preserve our distinctive genetic information” is unlikely to motivate most Western individuals to defend their genetic interests against the titanic forces arrayed against them. It almost certainly will not motivate the masses, who, as Michael O’Meara rightfully points out, are always induced to act by “myths” that encompass a cohesive worldview. Even rational activists can often become more motivated by these “myths” (which may of course constitute objective facts to a considerable degree) than to a pure empiricism. Thus, the “myth” of Yockeyan “High Culture” may be needed to motivate the defense of rational Salterian EGI.

In summary, whether or not a political ideology is rational or irrational is to a large part subjective, and in a day and age in which the word “fascist” is used a pejorative, stripped of most of its informational value, it is difficult to arrive at an objective reckoning of fascist rationality vs. irrationality.

Given the definitions given by me here, fascism is not particularly irrational, and to the extent that is does have irrational aspects, those are not necessarily bad, and, further, can be leveraged in the service of rational goals.

The main threat is if the irrational aspects of fascism inflate to a level akin to Salter’s criticism; thus, controlling fascism’s primal urges and keeping those urges within reasonable limits would be key in avoiding irrationality overload.

EGI and National Socialism, Part III: National Socialist Basics

Fundamental characteristics.

See this.  There, National Socialism is defined as:

A collectivist authoritarian system centered on a race-based palingenetic ultranationalism.

In other words: racial fascism.

A more modern definition: An authoritarian political system that utilizes collectivist organization to promote the ethnic genetic interests of the population, in the context of palingenetic ultranationalism.

Let us consider what I consider the fundamental characteristics, the foundational basics, of National Socialism, independent of the specific Hitlerian aspects of the historical German National Socialist German Worker’s Party (e.g., Germanocentic chauvinism, Nordicism, aggressive military expansionism, certain attachments to traditionalist feudalism, etc.).  In other words, what is the “National Socialist minimum” that would be applicable to, say, a pan-European national socialism?

The “national” part of the philosophy notes that it is a very particularistic ideology, focused on a particular ingroup – nation as a people, not as merely a nation state. National Socialism in its fundamental (as opposed to specifically German) form does not necessarily define what the “people” is, other than it has to be, ultimately, based on some sort of shared ancestry, there has to be a biological basis (see below) for the ingroup. Ingroup-outgroup competition is fundamental to the ideology, and to its particularistic nature; thus, “humanity” as a whole cannot be an ingroup, although a broad racial group (e.g., European-derived peoples) can be, in competition with other racial blocs. Therefore, in the sense of pursuing interests, National Socialism is opposed to humanism and universalism, although Universal Nationalism can be compatible with National Socialism, as other groups are entitled to have their own racial (or ethnic) blocs, although, as previously stated, these will be the subject of competition (although this competition need not threaten the existence of any group).

Being a form of fascism, National Socialism is, naturally, “ultra-nationalist,” the nationalism is of an extreme nature and, also according to its fascist nature, palingenetic in nature.  The nationalism centers on rebirth, a new order, change, and in National Socialism this is focused on, first and foremost, biological race, although cultural and civilizational considerations are also important.  Akin to ethnic genetic interests (EGI), National Socialism considers the biological to be ultimate interests while other considerations, while they may be extremely important, are proximate interests.

The “socialism” is political, not necessarily economic and thus private property and some degree of free market capitalism can be consistent with National Socialism (although economic socialism can be a part of the ideology’s implementation if desired).  Political socialism implies the reality that National Socialism is a collectivist ideology.  Now, Western individualism can of course be part of National Socialism, the ideology does not aim for an Asiatic hive-like mindless conformity; indeed, National Socialism opposes that (and that is one National Socialist critique of Bolshevism/Marxism – that it led to such an Oriental insect hive society).  However, although Western traditions of individual expression, Faustian overcoming, and the development of superior individual are prized, collectivism means that – at least when necessary – individualism and individual interests need to be subordinated to the collective good of the nation/people/race. When there is a conflict, particularly when the conflict becomes existential in the sense of threatening the racial basis of the people, then individual rights are sacrificed to serve collective interests. This also suggests when political socialism requires economic socialism – in the cases where private enterprise conflicts with national interests then private enterprise must be subordinate to state control, leading to at least some degree of economic socialism. Thus, decisions about economics are based on what is perceived as best for the collective; the economy is a mean and not an end.  Unlike Marxism, National Socialism does not derive its fundamental values from economics, but from the natural laws of evolved organisms, the struggle of life itself.

National Socialist collectivism manifests on what can be termed “hierarchical egalitarianism” – which is not an oxymoron.  National Socialism is egalitarian in that it strives to do away with class distinctions and makes all members of the nation – defined as a specific biocultural people – equal members of the “folk community," independent of class, wealth, status, etc.  All have the opportunity for upward mobility, and to prove their worth in the service of their people.

However, National Socialism is hierarchical in two meanings of the word. First, and fundamentally, it recognizes differences between people and ranks people based on inherent worth – that worth not based on class, wealth, status, etc. but instead based on racial values, merit, accomplishment, service, etc. These differences can be those between ingroup and outgroup and they can also be those within a group, such as recognized differences within the ingroup, meaning that while all members of the nation are fundamentally equal parts of the folk community (egalitarianism) so are more valuable specimens than others and are allowed to rise or fall based on their ability (hierarchical).  Second, hierarchy is manifested in the manner in which the nation state is politically organized, with a leadership cadre, and a leader-to-follower stratification of society based on overall worth (that is still egalitarian as members of the folk community have equal access to leadership possibilities independent of class or any other pre-determined societal stratification). This hierarchical political leadership need not lead to some of the “defective political institutions” identified by Salter in his On Genetic Interests analysis of fascist regimes.  Thus, I wrote:

Getting back to national socialist-style fascist regimes, one can ask: can the problem of defective political institutions be solved?  I think yes, if we presume that the “fuhrer principle” is not an essential feature of such regimes.  One could them consider authoritarian/totalitarian political structures that can have checks and balances (e.g. the Soviet regime had power split between Party, KGB, and Army –with Stalin being an aberration) and be responsive to the (properly informed) will of the people.  I have always been intrigued by Fest’s talk of “totalitarian democracy” in his book on Hitler; point is, we can consider “fascism” broadly conceived as a flexible, living ideology and not as a fossilized, history artifact.  In this way, national socialist political structures can be envisioned that can control elite free-riders and constrain ethnic mobilization within reasonable limits. One need not resort to democracy – which has been discredited with the destructive evil of multiculturalism and mass migration – to ensure the stability of any future EGI-based regime.

Again, we need to separate the fundamental basics of National Socialism from its specific implementation by the Hitlerian National Socialists of Germany.

The Old New Right

The other major problem with the System’s Jew-led New Right.

Consider this Counter-Currents article on what the System is terming The New Right, a heavily Jewish (and NW European-descended conservative “junior partners”) bunch of ideologically aracial reactionaries. Counter-Currents identifies the major problem of this New Right in that it ignores the issue of race. Very well, I agree. But there’s another problem, which in my opinion is of equal importance .Let’s look at the quote, reproduced in the Counter-Currents article, from the original Vanity Fair piece that describes this New Right:

The podcasters, bro-ish anonymous Twitter posters, online philosophers, artists, and amorphous scenesters in this world are variously known as “dissidents,” “neo-reactionaries,” “post-leftists,” or the “heterodox” fringe — though they’re all often grouped for convenience under the heading of America’s New Right. They have a wildly diverse set of political backgrounds, with influences ranging from 17th-century Jacobite royalists to Marxist cultural critics to so-called reactionary feminists to the Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski, whom they sometimes refer to with semi-ironic affection as Uncle Ted. Which is to say that this New Right is not a part of the conservative movement as most people in America would understand it. It’s better described as a tangled set of frameworks for critiquing the systems of power and propaganda that most people reading this probably think of as “the way the world is.” And one point shapes all of it: It is a project to overthrow the thrust of progress, at least such as liberals understand the word.

So, putting aside the ethnoracial provenance of some of these New Right adherents, and putting aside the race issue, what do we see? They are a grouping of “neo-reactionary” conservatives, some of whom admire Ted Kaczynski of all people (“whom they sometimes refer to with semi-ironic affection as Uncle Ted”) and who, to paraphrase Buckley, they are a gaggle of backward-looking “traditionalists” who want to stand athwart history yelling STOP! – to “overthrow the thrust of progress.” To summarize – they are reactionary conservative traditionalists – all of which the Sallis Groupuscule despises and opposes.

I have said it before and I’ will say it again – you are not going to attract quality people and inspire them to fight, inspire them to self-sacrifice, with a vision of “standing athwart history yelling STOP!”  The Left is successful for many reasons, but certainly one major reason is that it is progressive, forward-looking, it inspires its followers with an utopian vision of a better tomorrow, it doesn’t look backward to some mythical Golden Age, harkening to a return to a dead past, promoting a Bring Out Your Dead ethnostate with people living at a 14th century level of existence, a feudal hierarchy with the masses cowering “snug in their hobbit holes.” You are not going to defeat leftist progressive ideals with right-wing reactionary defeatism. An idea can only be effectively countered by a better idea, and returning to the dead past, turning back the clock of progress, is not a better idea; it is hardly a serious idea at all. It is juvenile, unrealistic, romantic nonsense; it is an “ideal” doomed to defeat and death at birth.

Successful popular support for Far Right movements historically manifested in European fascism of the first half of the 20th century. According to Marxist historical interpretation, and System dogma (really the same thing), fascism is “reactionary,” but that is not supported by an objective analysis. If a core characteristic of fascism is palingenesis, then that is hardly reactionary. Italian Fascism may have talked about the Roman Empire, but it was strongly influenced by the Futurist Movement and was likely the most ideologically and culturally futurist of all of the major European fascisms. German National Socialism may have been somewhat more reactionary than Italian Fascism in certain ways, but we cannot forget that at its core, National Socialism was a revolutionary movement, eschewing conservatism and monarchy, and building a racial state that combined political hierarchy with relative class egalitarianism.  Note that the successful mass movement in Germany was National Socialism, not the so-called “conservative revolutionaries (sic).” The Legionary Movement’s New Man looked forward, not backward. Neo-reaction is a cul-de-sac, dead-end defeatist nonsense. Is it an intentional diversion? The fundamentals of any New Movement must include a futurist mentality. We must oppose reactionary traditionalism.

The racial state is not enough. The racial-cultural state is better, but is still not enough.  We need the racial-cultural-ethical state, a moral state as I discussed at Western Destiny, a forward-looking entity based on a reimagining of Man, as exemplified by the Legionary movements focus on developing The New Man as the basis of a Romanian Legionary state.

The racial-cultural-ethical state, the moral state, based upon The New Man and new ethical-moral-philosophical standards, overturning the established order, is a revolutionary entity, and it is not going to come about from “neo-reaction” or “traditionalism” or from freaks reading Savitri Devi “snug in their hobbit holes.” Being focused on race is necessary but not sufficient. The System’s New Right fails in that regard, but the “movement” equally fails by being equally reactionary, an amoral, if not immoral, and unethical entity ill-suited to bring about radical change and ill-suited to defeat the Revolutionary Left by countering with a Revolutionary Right.  Thus, a complete criticism of The New Right also, by necessity, brings with it a criticism of the “movement.”  A pox on both their houses.

Odds and Ends, 4/18/22

In der news.

The hobbit hole crowd would like to ascribe the B-2 comedy (and I suppose the earlier FOGBANK fiasco) to the end of a "Faustian impulse." (note - then why isn't Musk's SpaceX an indication of a surging Faustian impulse)?

The hobbit hole argument is not very persuasive. The time interval between knowledge/no knowledge was very short; true that civilizations can decline very rapidly at the end, but in this case other explanations seem more likely. The amount of effort required to retain the knowledge was minimal, if the will to do so was present. The will to do so had less to do with Faustian drives into the unknown and more do with national security interests and basic technological expertise.

American science and technics, like America itself, is dead because it was MURDERED, not because of a "natural death" from a loss of Faustianism. The Jew-High Truster alliance, together with their colored pets, have made the entirety of the American STEM enterprise, including military/aerospace, into "diversity, equity, and inclusion." The American military, literally, cares several orders of magnitude more about "social justice" than about B-2 bombers. We have a Jew-High Truster hyper-capitalist ethos that only values immediate profits (apart from social justice, I suppose some loss of profits in the same of equity is allowed, but STEM will always be sacrificed for money). We have a darkening and dumbed down population, a pathetic educational system, and a corrupt culture.

You can ascribe all of that to "a loss of Faustianism" if you wish, but I doubt any of it would be a happening in the absence of Jews and the absence of the "Yankee" Puritan tradition of moralistic outrage.

Let's compare the hobbit hole high culture to my vision of the overman high culture, which is summarized thus

No more “proud, tragic” failure in “striving for the unattainable” in the “Faustian” culture – instead the Overman Culture will be characterized by the proud successful attainment of the infinite. That is what a hopeful individual can project as the new High Culture of the West, with links to the Classical and the Faustian, but surpassing both in the aim and objective of the human spirit. That is what Western Destiny can and should be.

Two people get it.  See this.  Also see this.  Steuben's trash post was one of the worst ever at Counter-Currents, and that's saying something, considering how badly the site has degenerated. One MUST understand - Steuben is expressing the underlying worldview of Der Movement's "traditionalism" - they WANT to live in 10th century hobbit holes. Actually, they THINK they want that - if they had to give up all the perks of modern life, they'd collapse into a fetal position and weep softly. Yes, type on your computer and spread nonsense over the global Internet while advocating a return of the Dark Ages 

There are three choices:

The System - to the sewer

Der Movement - to the hobbit hole

Sallis Groupuscule - to the stars

Quo vadis?

See this.  Also see this.  Liddell and Cochran weep.

See this.  Of course men have more "love at first sight." Men care about physical appearance. So, milady, men don't care about your "personality" (sic), your "intelligence" (sic), or your "accomplishments" (sic). The ONLY thing that matters is how you look. So, think about that as you waddle to your fridge to take that pint of ice cream out of the freezer.

Blasphemy of the day: The excesses of German National Socialism ruined fascism, wrecked the West, and put the White race in its current dangerous situation.

Now, there is nothing wrong with the basic principles of national socialism, which I agree with. But combining it with German fanaticism and militarism is what led to all of the problems.

When German fascism should have done was simply expel all of the Jews and other aliens (one way or the other), build up the country internally (which was done in the 1930s), and form alliances with fascist movements in other nations, and of course with Fascist Italy itself. These alliances would be defensive, not for conquest, and to help fascists come to power in other nations of Europe. Merger with Austria was appropriate, as that was popular with ethnic Austrians (ethnically akin to South Germans). As regards German minorities in other nations, they should have been repatriated to Germany, as opposed to seizing the territory in which they lived. The "Polish Corridor" should have been dealt with diplomatically. The alliance of fascists, perhaps in conjunction with Western democracies not threatened by German expansionism, could have put together an anti-communist and anti-Soviet alliance.

Ted Sallis translation services:

White supremacy = Whites defending their legitimate interests, the same as every other group does

Saving White children from White supremacy = brainwashing White children to disregard their own group interests, and sacrifice themselves for others who hate them.

Odds and Ends, 7/3/21

In der news. Emphasis added.

Der Movement weeps.

My response to this:

they drink their mead

their lies replace

our creed;

no wops allowed

to celebrate

Roman deed.

Let’s consider the latest insanity of Der Movement, some excerpts:

Another scheduled keynote speaker for the Muncie event was a guy billed as Matt H. Bach.

Yes, that is exactly who you think it is. That is none other than Matt Heimbach, former leader of the trailer park neo-Nazi outfit Traditionalist Workers Party and current anti-racism activist.

If you don’t know who Matt Heimbach is, you must be new here. Welcome to the Dissident Right. 

Yes, welcome to the Dissident Right, of which Counter-Currents is a key part.

For those who don’t know, I’ll give the Cliff’s Notes. For worse or for even worse, he is a significant figure in the history of our movement. 

What does that tell you about your “movement?”  Maybe that I am correct about it?

Matt Heimbach first rose to prominence in 2012-2013 when he tried to create a “White Student Union” at his college. It generated a lot of controversy and became a national news story. The college refused to officially recognize the group, but it continued in an unofficial capacity. They once had Jared Taylor speak at one of their events.

But Counter-Currents won’t dare criticize Taylor over that Heimbach connection. “Political” considerations are always paramount.

After college, Heimbach and his right-hand man Matt Parrot (sic) started the Traditionalist Workers Party (TWP). 

Who else had an association with Parrott?  Any guesses?

While the Alt-Right was pioneering new and innovative methods on online white activism..

Yes, indeed: Pepe, Kek, chugging gallons of milk, Spencer, "Arthur Kemp was right," Unite the Right, drunken podcasts, “youth culture” – certainly, pioneering new and innovative methods of being retarded jackasses.

…Heimbach chose instead to stick to the failed model of 1990s skinheads complete with uniforms, fascistic symbolism, and ostentatious displays of Nazi fetishism, with predictable results. 

It’s better of course to talk about Savitri Devi. That’s not out-dated Nutzism, no siree!  Or should I say - no sari?  WN 2.0!  An unending success story!  The Alt Right, for example!

Heimbach thought online activism was for suckers and that serious white activists need to be out doing things in the real world. 

He had a point there.

Being allied to the most prominent white identitarian in the country gave Heimbach and TWP a new level of prestige.

Imagine needing to be associated with Spencer to get “a new level of prestige.”  

The Optics War really began when TRS attempted to add the TWP’s podcast to their roster. This is when Andrew Anglin and Weev of the Daily Stormer, the biggest white nationalist website in the world, stepped in. After Wignat Woodstock, the Stormer did not want the Alt-Right to be associated with costumed neo-Nazism anymore and gave TRS an ultimatum: the Daily Stormer would cease promoting TRS podcasts unless they dropped TWP. TRS relented. This led to a huge online debate over optics, the value of real-world events, and how to tailor the message for a mass audience. In the ensuing Optics War, people were doxed, reputations were ruined, and alliances shifted.

After all, Anglin is the King of Optics, and the Daily Stormer has no connection to anything Nazi.

The Optics War ended when Matt Heimbach was caught having an affair with Matt Parrot’s wife (who was also Heimbach’s mother-in-law, as Heimbach was married to Parrot’s step-daughter from a previous marriage). He also assaulted Parrot in front of his children. This was the end of Matt Heimbach’s career in white nationalism.

It doesn’t help that this smug, know-it-all writer cannot correctly spell the names of the people he gossips about. More importantly, note the word “career” being used here. A “commercialized amusement business,” indeed!

For more information, watch Ryan Faulk’s video “Matt Heimbach and the Perils of Wignatism.”

Who is Faulk that we should all listen to his views?

So let’s get back to this March for Medicare for All. Once Matt Heimbach’s picture appeared on March for Medicare for All’s official Instagram page, it took all of two seconds for people to recognize that Matt H. Bach was the notorious neo-Nazi Matt Heimbach.

Too bad Johnson wasn’t as alert with respect to “David Lewis” vs. “Dave Lewis."

I have cautioned people from writing off the socialist Left as controlled opposition. As race-cucked as the socialist Left may be, they are pretty consistently anti-Zionist, and this has got a lot of Jewish organizations worried that the socialist Left is on the verge of going full-blown antisemitic. During the recent Israel-Palestine fiasco, I saw a ton of Jews on Twitter losing their marbles about it.

That’s the David Duke Fallacy – if someone is critical of anything Jewish, then they are an ally or a potential ally.

In the short term, Leftist anti-Zionism is more dangerous to Jews than Rightist antisemitism because the socialist Left has more social respectability and a shred of institutional support. Anti-Zionism is also harder to justify censoring than outright antisemitism, so orchestrating a smear campaign against the Left would be the next best option.

Who cares?

I could believe that Matt Heimbach would want to be a speaker at an event like this. He always had communist tendencies even when he was a white nationalist and he was also an attention whore.

What Quota Queen is not an attention whore?

What I couldn’t believe is that the organizers of this rally would have booked him without knowing who he was. How would that work? “Hey, you may not know me, but do you think I can speak at your rally?” “Sure thing, stranger.”

Worked for Hermansson.

An exception might be if someone put in a lot of time or money into the event. In such a case, an organizer might throw them a bone with a few minutes of stage time as a way of saying thanks. Maybe Heimbach did that. If that were the case, that might let the organizers off the hook slightly in the sense that they were not deliberately malicious. Heimbach is enough of a narcissist that he might not have realized or cared about the damage his presence might cause. Or he could be a Fed. He has a criminal record and is facing lawsuits. He could have cut a deal along the way.

Right. Everyone the Quota Queens don’t like is:

1. A “Fed” or a “CIA asset.”

2. A “Jew.”

3. “Insane” or a “paranoid piece of crap.”

Too bad they weren’t that paranoid with Hermansson. Or with Lewis.

So who was responsible for this prank? I think we can safely rule out the infiltrator being a Right-winger. If the Right were going to do something like this, they would have used the prank to promote someone who was still within our ranks who could then have capitalized on the publicity. They would not have used Matt Heimbach, who was kicked out of our movement years ago. If Nick Fuentes, Sam Hyde, or Andrew Anglin had appeared on the flyer, I might have said “OK, that was one of our guys.” 

Note the words “our guys” Does EGI Notes use “our guys” to describe any of those individuals?

But there is no reason why someone on our side would have wanted to promote a current anti-racist activist. 

Unless the anti-racist activist is Swedish.

There is another lesson here that perhaps we already knew but it bears repeating. Our enemies have reached their quota of traitors. 

Meet the ethnonationalists. And HBDers.  And Nordicists.

Former Breitbart writer Katie McHugh tried to pull a Christian Picciolini. She doxed dozens of people and handed over hundreds of e-mails from people, some of them as prominent as Stephen Miller. Several anti-white hit pieces have been written based on information McHugh provided, and in return, she got next to nothing. The liberal establishment just said “Thanks for the doxes, now fuck off.” She got a couple of fluff pieces written on her, but she did not get the Picciolini-style career of a reformed racist that she was hoping for.

Any comments from Gregory Hood on that?

If you have ever done pro-white activism, you can always quit, but don’t even think about trying to switch sides. It won’t work.

What about "admixed" coastal wop Picciolini (*)?

*As opposed to the "purebred" mountain wop Conte.

This is by no means a defense of Heimbach or anyone else in Der Movement. But folks who take seriously the deranged gibbering of a sari-clad lesbian hag who engaged in a sham marriage with a (male) South Asian because of a pathetic delusion that upper-caste Hindus are "Aryans" have no right to mock anyone else as "Wignats."

Some of the comments for that post are hilarious as well.  Some excerpts:

That’s why one has to admire men like Revilo Oliver, William Pierce, Sam Francis, Joe Sobran, Murray Rothbard (neither a white nat nor even a white man, but went hard against The System, and paid for it), Jared Taylor, Peter Brimelow, Kevin MacDonald (though he shrewdly stayed his pen until he at least had tenure)…

Blasphemy against the “rock star.” 

…and Greg Johnson.

Laughter.

I would add David Duke, too. 

Before or after the gambling?

What is really needed is less “aesthetic” than character quality. I’ve always thought Taylor was the model. He tells hard truths…

Hard truths? Are you mad?  Someone who avoids the “JQ” and whose website wouldn’t even cover population genetics papers by Jews demonstrating the modern Middle Eastern ancestry of the HuWhite Ashkenazi?

…but is never inflammatory…

Except to Italians, Hungarians, and Romanians, but who cares about them, amirite?

…(as was Oliver, who was more learned and a better writer, but probably much less effective as an influencer). He was and is truthful but disciplined, and very presentable in his person. But above all, he had the character not to pursue the more comfortable life he might have had in order to awaken his people.

Oakton, VA is really "slumming it,” I know. Oh, the sacrifice!

Note the IQ differences between the above men (with the possible exception of Duke) and lesser lights like Spencer and the seemingly ridiculous Heimbach.

And yet, they are all equally failures.

…prior to the 80s, racial dispossession was mostly only apparent to discerning types like Wilmot Robertson…

Have to have some Humphrey Hagiography mixed in.

Great story.  For the benefit of us newbs not familiar with all the Dramatis Personae, it would help to define or list what the various acronyms are. For example, I could never find out who/what “TRS” is.

Gee…five seconds of “googling” is too difficult for the new Counter-Currents crowd. Here’s some help. Try "TRS Nazi." 

Also, it seems that the new C-C paywall system is working.  I’m noticing more comments here and not the amount of inappropriate or trolling comments that non or poorly-moderated websites get.

Huh? The number of comments are no more than before, and this idiot’s pathetic comment refutes the issue of alleged quality.

Not to brag, but I also do weight-lifting to stay in shape.

Now try boosting your IQ into the triple digit range.

Usual caveats apply.  I really wish there was an edit comment function as I’m sure there’s a spelling mistake somewhere.

Good to know we’re maintaining that high, high, high commenting quality!

Gee…can you think of a “more movement” “movement” post than this? Ejaculations commence.

Macro Socialism, Micro Capitalism

Political vs. Economic.

Considering the question of socialism vs. capitalism, we need to distinguish macro/political issues from those that are micro/economic.

Micro/economic issues ask what is the most efficient way to allocate resources, including and especially scarce resources, in a society?  What is the best way to enhance the standard of living? At this level, private property and supply/demand works best; therefore, at the micro/economic level, some type of (controlled and retrained) capitalism seems to be the best choice.

The macro/political level issues ask how should society be organized; what is the fundamental raison d’etre of your political system?  Does the economy exist to serve the people or the other way around?  Here, macro/political socialism is best – society should be organized to serve the interests of “the people” (the ethny – race and civilization), not the economy; a nation-state is more than an economy, the state should not prioritize the interest of the wealthy and major corporations, and “economic growth” should not be the driving force of decision-making. We should reject laissez-faire solutions, and opt for state-control, to a degree, a restraint of the capitalist micro/economic system so as to make sure that the economy serves the people, not the opposite. This is Political Socialism – an organized society in which economic activity is subordinated to, and controlled for, the interests of the nation.  At its lower levels, this economy can certainly include capitalist organization – private property, supply/demand, stock markets and banks, private investment, etc.- but that exists only as long as it serves the objectives of national prosperity and enrichment. The economy is the food of the nation, it is sustenance, not the purpose of existence, and it is means not ends. There can and should be a social safety net (for one’s own people, not racial and cultural aliens), and the wealthy should not be too wealthy and they should not control the economy and the political system.

When Yockey talked about “Ethical Socialism” he was talking about, and promoting, macro-level Political Socialism (akin to Spengler’s “Prussian Socialism”), not Marxism – in fact it is anti-Marxist, as was the socialism of National Socialism. When I criticize capitalism that is more about wealthy rent-seekers and “woke” corporations, not the small business owner or an individual investing in the stock market for retirement.

Politically, we should be socialist, but at the level of everyday economics, elements of capitalism can be reasonable, properly restrained constrained to meet the national interest.

On the Jews

Thoughts.

Jews often complain about “resurgent anti-Semitism,” and, indeed, one can find many websites and social media accounts (at least before they are censored) highly critical of the Jews.  Let us consider together.

Most people accepted and have accepted the mainstream Holocaust narrative. Therefore, at the end of WWII, the Jews enjoyed the sympathy and goodwill of most people in the (White) world (as well as the beneficiary of White guilt). So how did we reach the point we are at today, where people meme anti-Semitic cartoons that would make Julius Streicher blush? Some would day that the “sickness” of anti-Semitism is inherent in the evil goyim and this is all independent of Jewish behavior (despite the fact that Jews have been “persecuted” by every nation, other than their own, that they have lived in, since the beginning of their history). A more economical explanation is that anti-Semitism is simply a reaction to Jewish behavior.

If the Jews were simply another ethnic-religious group then they could have fit in with the fabric of America and enjoyed the goodwill of the American people. This did not happen. How did the Jews repay White America for the sacrifice of blood and treasure spent in defeating Hitler? By destroying the traditional White America, through the “civil rights” movement, forced racial integration, the 1960s counter-culture and the anti-war movement, the 1965 immigration act and the consequent mass alien immigration, through the Frankfurt School and the degeneration of American culture, etc. Europe was punished for Nazism, even those nations that fought Hitler, via The Great Replacement.

So is the current zeitgeist of anti-Semitism in any way surprising?

Of relevance.  Solzhenitsyn:

How do we Russians take responsibility for the pogroms, for those merciless peasant arsonists, for the mad revolutionary soldiers and sailor beasts, and the Jews get to spread their hands in blameless innocence over the countless Yiddish names among the commissar-butchers who commanded the whole wretched business?

Of interest to any Black readers (*) of this site:

In my interview for Griffin's One Sheaf One Vine book, I discussed personal experiences growing up with Jews and Blacks and with almost every racial type possible. One thing I didn't have time to get into there was my observations about Jewish attitudes toward Blacks.  While there is much here to consider, too much to be completely gone into in one paragraph here, a brief summary would be as follows. Please note that here I specifically refer to my own experiences and observations, including things I have personally heard and /or discussed with Jews over the years. While many Jews are willing to use Blacks (and other non-Whites, but especially Blacks) in an instrumental fashion as weapons against White Gentiles, my observations have been that many Jews hate and fear Blacks. This hatred and fear is immediate, primal, and personal - it is based on a fear of Black crime, violence, and rioting; it is a direct personal fear that a given Black or group of Blacks will harm a given Jew or group of Jews. Fear breeds hatred, especially when mixed with contempt; while Jews have contempt for all non-Jews, they particularly have a low opinion of Blacks. Now, Jews hate and fear White Gentiles as well, but this is a different level of fear and hatred. Jews don't fear Whites at the level of the individual violent criminal or at the level of the violent mob as they fear Blacks; instead, Jews fear Whites at the social and political level - that Whites will politically organize a society-wide movement that will be directly or indirectly anti-Semitic. While Jews have contempt for White Gentles as their intellectual inferiors, they do consider Whites to be very much more intelligent and capable than are Blacks. Thus, while Jews complain about Black anti-Semitism and anti-Jewish Black leaders, they do not take that threat seriously other than that it may provoke limited riots or individual crimes of violence. Jews contemptuously dismiss Blacks as too unintelligent and undisciplined (and too easily manipulated) to be a threat at the political level, unlike the threat from Whites. Thus, Whites they consider intelligent and disciplined enough to organize against Jews at the national level; after all, Jews have had bitter experience with this. Again, here I am not here expressing my own opinions, but merely summarizing what I have heard and/or discussed with various Jews over the years about their opinions. I believe that thoughtful Blacks should have an understanding of attitudes toward their race; for many Blacks, what I write here will not come as a surprise.

*And why shouldn't there be such readers? Thoughtful individuals of any race may be interested in bluntly honest talk of issues of relevance to race and society.

Odds and Ends, 1/17/21

In der news. In all cases, emphasis added.

Sincere man of genuine greatness.

More of the sincere great man.

Sallis’ Law in three easy steps! Thus:

Step One:

Nicholas J. Fuentes

@NickJFuentes

Replying to 

@NickJFuentes

I’m not even white, im Mexican and black

Step Two:

REFOLLOW America First Investments

@AmFirstInvest

Replying to 

@NickJFuentes

And Italian!

Step Three:

Solar High voltage signHigh voltage sign

@SolarCultist

That’s what he said

But, remember – there’s no ethnic fetishism or affirmative action in Der Movement; Johnson says so, so don’t you forget it!

According to the HBD filth, there is no problem here.

Goebbels really represented a Counter-Currents-style ethnonationalist. At the same time he was a leading member of the anti-Slav, anti-Czech National Socialist regime, and at the same time he was producing anti-Czech propaganda, he was engaged in an adulterous love affair with a Czech actress. Ethnonationalism!

A view that no doubt will be very popular among Der Retards – if (if!) the covid-19 vaccine inhibits transmission, then it must be mandatory.  In that case, we must have sufficient herd immunity to stop the pandemic, or else it is going to go on and on, with the virus mutating, possibly becoming more deadly and possibility evading the vaccine, making a new vaccine necessary. The longer this goes on, the worse everything will be.

Bad news from Counter-Currents:

In 2020, we also set out to raise $150,000 in order to not only continue, but expand our work. After emptying the PO Box and adding up the numbers, I am proud to announce that we managed to raise $152,634 before 2020 turned to 2021. In addition, we have received some donations since New Year’s Eve which will be added to the next fundraiser. 

There's a sucker born every minute, as they say.

We did all of this by overcoming deplatforming and censorship in the middle of a massive economic downturn. This is a truly impressive accomplishment, and we are most grateful to all of our donors.

The rank-and-file are hopeless, absolutely hopeless. But, remember all of this the next time you are told that the "movement" "has no money."

Next week we will start working on a much needed update of the website. This means that you will see some drastic improvements very soon.

"Much needed update...drastic improvements?" New writers, perhaps?  No more Jeelvy, Goad, and Full Moon Ancestry?

Also starting next week, we will send out a weekly newsletter with links to all our articles. This is necessary because of increasing social media censorship, which makes it more difficult for our readers to stay abreast with what is happening on the site. Going forward, our primary social media communication will be through our Telegram channel and Gab, so please follow us there...

Gab?  Johnson recently tweeted (remember when he wrote that he wouldn't be using Twitter any more?):

Maybe someday Gab will not be a dumpster fire...

Sigh. But, hey, keep on sending in dem dere D'Nations.

More lies.  Let’s see. Blacks, Hispanics, Jews, White leftists of all types – including “founding stock” – attack the Confederacy, and suddenly it is a White ethnic conspiracy against Anglo-Americans.

Put Der Movement under the slightest stress and their true feelings (like women, all they have are “feelings”) pour out. I don’t forget Taylor attacking some leftist “intellectual” for being ethnically Hungarian when that was completely irrelevant to the issue at hand.

But, hey, keep on telling me that the affirmative action program is only my imagination.

What?  Spencer was made President of NPI only after many years – nay, decades! – of successful activism, and don’t you forget it!

Nikitin-Johnson Talk

And other news.  In all cases, emphasis added.

The talk.

Does Nikitin know about the anti-Russian essays that have been featured at Counter-Currents?  Mr. Nikitin, and Russian readers of EGI Notes, please consider the following from Counter-Currents:

See this.

But even the whitest of Russians, to the extent that he thinks of himself as a Russian, is committed to a trans-racial identity, an identity whose racial “substratum” includes not just European, but also Mongoloid and Near Eastern (e.g., Caucasian) elements, as well as mixtures of all three…A Russian is not, therefore, just another kind of European. Thus it is with good reason that Russians have always felt that their identity, interests, and destiny are distinct from those of Europe. This “Europeanization,” however, occurred only on the surface, and in its essence Russia remained a distinctly non-European society, in which a European minority elite ruled over a Slavic, Asiatic, Near Eastern, and mixed-race population. However, this process of “Europeanization” was drastically reversed, both culturally and more importantly racially, with the Bolshevik Revolution.

Moreover, blaming the backwardness of Russia on Communism would be like blaming slavery for the backwardness of Africa…If the identity, interests, and destiny of Russia are not European…the stronger traditionalism of Russians, their patriotism and pride in their heritage, do not advance White Nationalist interests any more than the racial pride and patriotism of Indians, Chinese, Middle Easterners, Latin Americans, or Africans. Indeed, it might make them more formidable enemies of our interests.

Racially and culturally, the forerunner of Russia was the Grand Duchy of Moscow (1263–1547)…by the end of the 15th century, the Grand Duchy of Moscow was populated mostly by Christianized Tatar-Mongols who in the course of the previous two centuries had gradually adopted Orthodox Christianity and taken Slavic names. The indigenous Slavic population had become a minority in a relatively short period of time due to the large influx of these Christianized Asiatic nomads, and due to mixed marriages between Christianized Mongols and indigenous Slavs.

Also see this.

White Nationalists must finally come to grips with the fact that the national interests of Russians are not only not the same as, but, in many cases, are actually in conflict with those of Europeans. Therefore, they should not expect Russians to feel empathy with their struggle. In fact, the majority of Russians do not even think they share common enemies with Europeans. Surprising as it may seem to many White Nationalists, Muscovite-Russians see European civilization itself as their main enemy, and it is this confrontation and animosity that underline their identity and their vision of their civilizational destiny.

Mr. Nikitin, also please see these comments:

AT

Posted April 11, 2014 at 8:14 pm | Permalink

The author loses a lot of credibility when he compares Russian minorities to blacks, Arabs, etc. Culturally and biologically, that’s a crazy thing to say.

Reply

Greg Johnson

Posted April 11, 2014 at 8:19 pm | Permalink

He’s not comparing them culturally and biologically. He’s comparing them in terms of their propensity to criminal behavior and rioting, for example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_Night

And, of course, as we have seen in Ukraine, the presence of a disgruntled Russian minority can be used as a pretext for Russian incursions and annexations.

Reply

AT

Posted April 11, 2014 at 8:28 pm | Permalink

Are there statistics to back that up? Especially when you compare them to blacks, I’d need to see some data.

Reply

Greg Johnson

Posted April 12, 2014 at 2:49 am | Permalink

He’s comparing them to blacks in terms of their analogous sociological profile. It is not a statistical comparison. I doubt that any group is close to blacks in the amount of petty crime, murder, and chaos they create. Of course Jews are far more destructive on a grand scale, with the wars and revolutions they foment, not to mention the fact that they are principally responsible for the collapse of segregation and white supremacy, and the dismantling of immigration control, opening the floodgates to black crime and chaos.

I can’t help notice that none of that racial and cultural hatred toward Russians was brought up in the Nikitin-Johnson discussion. I suppose that’s all “down the memory hole” (just like “Trump is toast no matter what”), but at EGI Notes nothing goes down the memory hole.

As far as the talk itself, Nikitin made good points and seems like an impressive fellow; my only disagreement was with his attempt to whitewash Nazi hostility to Slavs.  While an element of a “crusade against Bolshevism” was always a component of Operation Barbarossa, it only really came to the fore after Stalingrad, when the Germans needed to change the narrative to one of a pan-European crusade against Bolshevism, to appeal to non-German SS recruits and to win support from other nations; the original hegemonic aspirations against the Slavs were downplayed. And, yes, the Ukrainians originally welcomed the Germans, but they changed their tune after experiencing Koch, no?  And whatever Hitler wrote about Jewish influence in Russia, he was never shy about the need for Germany to conquer living space in the east. Even Irving, who certainly can’t be placed as inherently anti-Hitler, admits what the Nazi war aims really were.  There is a difference between national socialism (the generalized ideology) and National Socialism (the Hitler-German party and regime).  The former is certainly suitable for Slavs; the latter is not.

Durocher’s nervous breakdown continues?

Among other things, the team learned that these so-called Norsemen may not have been entirely Nordic.

“The Vikings had a lot more genes from southern and eastern Europe than we anticipated,” said Willerslev. “They frequently had children with people from other parts of the world. In fact, they also tended to be dark-haired rather than blond, which is otherwise considered an established Viking trait.”

The study also indicated Vikings may have been the jet-setting elite of their day, having little in common—genetically—with the inland peasants in their native lands. 

“The Vikings traveled much farther, had lots of southern European genes and were very likely part of a much more extensive cultural exchange with the rest of the world than any contemporary peasant society,” said Willerslev.

Years of therapy required for Durocher?

Der Movement will complain that these findings will be used by the Left to justify alien immigration into Scandinavia. Well, yes, but two points.  First, such immigration has been going full-steam for decades before this study came out, so it’s not really that important – just another brick in the wall.  Second, Der Movement has no one to blame but itself – for basing its ideology on the weak and crumbling foundation of “racial purity,” and for endlessly engaging in Nordicist fetishism. They made their positions highly vulnerable, and have been warned against it for many years.

The proper attitude is that the genetic makeup of the Vikings in the Dark Ages is completely irrelevant to the interests of Scandinavians today. EGI is forward looking, the past is essentially irrelevant; and, more generally, the interests of any ethny is based on what that ethny is today and what it wants to be in the future.  What happened in its past is beyond its control and  is reflected in that ethny’s characteristics of the present.  Racial purity is irrelevant.  Genetic distinctiveness is relevant. What people did centuries or millennia ago is irrelevant to what needs to be done by people living in those lands today.

More lies.  Imagining a conflict between Jews and their “Anglo-Nordic” junior partners.  And the comments – with old Humphrey imagining that non-Colored “unassimilable minorities” were anti-Reagan, while the wops were an important part of the Reagan coalition. Lies, lies, lies.

Very cognitive, very elite.

"Poor white trash of Asia.” My message to White Australians – and to Whites in general – never forget that the HBDers (and Silkers) want to privilege the interests of Asians, Chinese foremost among them, above that of Whites.  HBD is the traitor within the gates; HBD must be destroyed in order for the White race to live (and the Silkers need to be laughed out of existence).

Also note the picture in the article that is prime onanism material for the Silkers.  Can Danny type his MR articles with only one hand available?

Legionary Fascism as the Most Pure Fascist Form

Palingenesis.

Which major fascism can be considered the most pure form of the creed - considering Griffin's definition of "palingenetic ultra-nationalism?"

Of the various major historical forms of fascism, the Italian version was the least “pure,” the least palingenetic.  Indeed, that is why we read:

….Codreanu has also become a main reference point for the Italian neofascist groups, alongside Evola and the ideologues of Nazism. He argues that this phenomenon, which tends to shadow references to Italian Fascism itself, is owed to Mussolini's failures in setting up "a true fascist state", and to the subsequent need of finding other role models.

Although I am often critical of the Italian character, I do not believe that character is responsible for the failures of Italian fascism with respect to palingenesis. After all, there is evidence of palingenesis at various points in Italian history. Fascism as an integrated political movement began in Italy; further, Italy had a history of definite early proto-fascism centered on national renewal – Cola di Rienzi being a prominent example (and then there are Garibaldi and D'Annunzio), and Gentile’s Actual Idealism provided a sound philosophical basis for palingenetic activism in the service of the State.  And we cannot forget the undercurrents of Futurism in early Italian fascism.  No, the failure of Italian fascism most likely had its roots in certain defects of Mussolini’s character, as well as the attachment of Italian fascism (pre-Salo) to the monarchy and to the perfidious influence of the Catholic Church. In Romania, the Legionaries were never slavishly adherent to the pontifications of decrepit nobles (although they did support the monarchy in principle) and the Orthodox faith was more robust than effete and superficial Catholicism.  In Germany of course, the Kaiser was gone and Hitler did not tolerate religious interference in the function of the Third Reich.  

Now, Italian fascism was indeed respectfully palingenetic in its beginning and at its end.  Early fascism, with its strain of novelty, Futurism, and under the influence of Gentile, was sufficiently robust; further, in the Italian Social Republic (Salo), the monarchy has been jettisoned, the influence of the Church weakened, and a more militant, socialist, and pan-European form of fascism emerged from the ashes of the former fascist state.  It is telling that Gentile, before his assassination, made a re-emergence as a figure of importance at this stage, demonstrating that his instincts were always sound. Unfortunately, these positive eras in Italian fascism bookended a long reactionary period, starting with the Vatican accord and ending with Mussolini’s overthrow, in which fascist revolutionary zeal stagnated, and a dull authoritarianism replaced palingenetic fervor.

Having said all of that, there may well be a contribution to the Italian character to the relative lack of fanaticism and discipline exhibited by Italian fascism compared to other versions of the creed. That's not palingenesis, but the degree of commitment and willingness to sacrifice to the cause. However, even so, much blame must still go to Mussolini for essentially wasting a generation in power.  But, with that, Mussolini was still a very great men, and Yockey’s praise for him in Imperium was fully justified. It is unfortunate that his greatness was tainted by flaws that prevented the potential of fascism to be actualized in Italy.

German fascism, not surprisingly, exhibited discipline and considerable fanaticism.  It did have significant palingenetic aspects, focused on race and eugenics.  However, there are some problems here.  It’s true that that Nazi regime was technically advanced – think of the V-1 and V-2, the jet and rocket planes, advanced U-boats, and other “German secret weapons” (albeit unfortunately not the atom bomb) – but still, the Nazi regime was anti-Futurist, and was focused on a “traditionalist” return to the ideal of Nordic Germanic tribes, manifested in 20th century reality by a neo-feudal society of Germanic overlords and Slavic serfs in conquered Eastern Europe.  So, balancing out the palingenetic aspects of German Nazi fascism were reactionary elements, coupled to a hyper-materialist focus on a strictly biological palingenesis.

As regards the Romanian Legion, see this.  Also see this.

Despite some superficial traditionalist elements, the Legionary movement had definite Futurist strains, and it was the single most palingenetic fascist movement in its insistence on the renewal of the individual, on the most fundamental spiritual levels of character, and on the renewal of the society into something different and better. Concepts of self-sacrifice and personal overcoming was maximized in the Legionary movement, on a personal level, compared to other fascisms.  To paraphrase Codreanu, Italian fascism was about the State, German fascism was about the Race, but Romanian fascism was about the Soul, about the New Man, about forming a new type of Romanian without which national renewal would be impossible.  In this sense we can see why I consider Romanian Legionary fascism to be the most pure form of the creed – it was at least as ultra-nationalist as any other fascism, but it brought the concept of palingenesis, of over-coming, to a higher level of any other fascist creed; it called for the most radical alteration of self and society, particularly if we are to consider the creed on its own terms and elevate the importance of Spirit over Matter (at least with respect to Palingenesis). The Italians focused on remaking the State, the Germans on improving the biological race, but the Romanians emphasized remaking the Man and Society.