Category: fascism

EGI and National Socialism, Part II

Further analysis of this issue.

In On Genetic Interests, Salter makes some comments about National Socialism, and fascism more generally, from the standpoint of EGI.  It’s worth looking at those.

Salter has some positive things to say about National Socialism: “…a revitalized social policy, full employment, rapid economic growth, an egalitarian class structure, and the salvaging of national pride…” as well as “economic and health benefits” that flowed from its “biological orientation.” But the “crimes” of National Socialism are such that OGI suggests that “an ethnicised constitution” should be abandoned if it necessarily led to such “crimes.”

National Socialism is criticized by Salter for having a sort of “mystical” conception of ethnic and racial differences, a non-scientific and non-statistical belief of completely disjunctive ethnic distinctions – considering (closely related) groups akin to different species.  Thus, Germans are Aryan supermen while Poles are subhumans, even though, particularly on the global scale, these two groups are actually quite similar (albeit not identical, there are differences at the group level – albeit with individual overlap).  Salter instead suggests a “demystified set of propositions based on objective truths revealed by science, truths concerning group identity and group interests, equally valid for all ethnies”  While I essentially agree with Salter, three points: (1) the “movement” as it currently exists really does not care much for such scientific “objective truths;” (2) related to point one, people are often motivated to act – including in their genetic interest  by more irrational ideals; and (3) noting stops an enlightened fascism from incorporating scientific objective truths, if it has the right leadership (although irrational emotion may also be used to motivate the masses…and perhaps the elites as well).

Salter criticizes fascism in general had having defective political institutions, which failed to prevent elite free-riding or constrained ethnic mobilization.  Thus, fascist elites used the escalation of ethnic and national tensions to consolidate their own power, selfishly putting the long-term genetic continuity and social stability of their people at risk for personal gain – or so Salter asserts. That fascist – especially National Socialist – regimes perhaps went too far with ethnic mobilization, overshooting the mark and starting wars with genetically similar neighboring ethnies, is a historical fact.  Salter considers fascism to be a “mass strategic blunder” – a “misdirected and overblown investment by citizens in their ethnies that forced other nations to unite against them.”  There’s some truth to that, but it’s really particularly rue only of Hitler’s Germany, not of fascist movements in general. Salter criticizes Hitler’s quixotic and destructive military adventures, to steal land from others to recreate some sort of Aryan medieval peasant society; without, as Salter asserts, democratic restraints, Hitler was able to force through his vision to the long-term detriment of his own people (and closely related European ethnies).

Essentially, Hitler’s regime was, according to Salter, a genetic interest over-inflated “bubble” (just like an over-heated stock market “bubble”) that burst, leaving Germans (and all other Europeans) worse off than before.  Salter writes: “an economic analogy is the speculative bubble, which can occur anywhere in the fitness portfolio, though risk rises steeply as fitness concentration declines.”  Salter identifies the historic manifestations of fascism in Germany and Italy as such bubbles: “Fascism is an over-investment in national interests at the cost of individual and foreign group interests.”

Salter’s graphs of alternative fitness portfolios shows National Socialism as sacrificing individual and human interests for an inflated investment in ethny; radial Christianity and communism sacrifice all for “humanity” – while of course we know that multiculturalism sacrifices the majority for minority interests.

Thus, while Salter criticizes fascism, he of course has perhaps even more harsh words for Marxism, which sacrificed the blood of its peoples not even to pursue group ethnic interests, but in the service of an anti-biological crazed humanism gone beyond any sane and reasonable limits.  It’s that same impulse that is destroying the West and tis peoples today.  And of course Salter would disapprove of a radical Christianity that ignores EGI; his opposition to multiculturalism as it is practiced by the System is of course well known.

There is some truth to Salter’s criticisms.  However, there is more to “fascism” than the bellicose policies of a Hitler or Mussolini. Other fascisms were more concentrated on improving native interests on the home front, without grant military adventuress abroad.  One could cite Codreanu’s movement in Romania, or fascist manifestations in, say, Spain, Ireland, Hungary, Norway, and the Baltic States.  Even the fascist movements of France and Britain more, at most, concerned with preserving already existing empire built by non-fascist (and even democratic) regimes; those fascisms had no grand schemes of fresh foreign conquests, particularly not against closely related European ethnies.  Thus, one need not correlate fascism with any speculative bubble defined by over-investment in narrow ethny resulting in individual sacrifices in wars to despoil other peoples.  I also note that democracies are not shy about mobilizing individuals to fight for the greater glory of both “principles” (typically humanistic) as well as the class interests of the wealthy.  One can find speculative bubbles in many ideologies, and, indeed as Salter states, throughout the fitness portfolio.

One could easily envision “fascism” that is scientifically accurate, based on objective truths (perhaps spiced up with some mass-mobilizing “irrationality”), so that’s not a major impediment to actualizing such regimes in a manner consistent with long term stability of genetic interests.  More to the point is the problem of defective political institutions, manifested in elite free-riding and runaway ethnic mobilization unrestrained by so-called “democratic checks and balances.”

Democratic institutions, which are favored in OGI, are hardly immune to some of the other defects attributed to fascist regimes.  Elite free-riding is a permanent fixture in liberal democracies, and is in fact one major driving force for the dispossession of Western peoples.  The elite Right globalists want cheap labor at the expense of the majority ethny, while the Left globalists essentially want to “elect a new people” based on mass immigration, so as to consolidate their own hold on power. In multicultural democracies, minority groups free ride on the majority; in more homogenous democratic nations, elite free-riding is both political and socioeconomic.  Runaway ethnic mobilization?  Certainly for minorities in multicultural states.  When the same elites – both native and alien – control all major political parties and control all the major levers of power, then “democratic institutions” are useless.  One could speculate that an “ethnic constitution” could obviate some of these difficulties – but good luck getting that done in the current “democratic” System.  Even so, if there is something fundamentally corrupt about democracy that causes elite free-riding (mendaciously masked as “free elections”), then perhaps an “ethnic constitution” or an “ethnic culture” (another option in OGI) would not be sufficient.

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.

Advertisements

EGI and National Socialism, Part I

Several definitions and an analysis.

Defining national socialism (small “n” small “s”): 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.


Note that, contrary to those who misread Salter’s work, a pursuit of genetic interests is wholly compatible with eugenics (which is traditionally important in national socialism), since a population’s fitness can be enhanced by replacing maladaptive, or even merely less adaptive, alleles with those more optimal. They key in preserving genetic interests in a manner compatible with eugenics is to avoid unnecessarily large and rapid genetic changes; when directed (eugenic) change occurs it should be “just enough” to get achieve the desired goal (and no further)  Superfluous changes and, certainly, large-scale genetic replacement, must be avoided.


In On Genetic Interests, Salter is critical of historical National Socialism and Fascism as vehicles for genetic interests, and his criticisms have some validity.  In particular, Hitler was a reckless gambler with the genetic interests of the German people, endangering long-term stability in a quixotic quest to colonize Eastern Europe and set up a Germanic archaeo-futurist peasant society on the lands of Russia and Ukraine.


However, the historical actualization , in a given place in a given time, by flawed leadership, of particular political philosophies does not logically lead one to conclude that the underlying political philosophy itself is either good or bad for a specific purpose. What political philosophy extant since WWII has proven itself capable of preserving Western genetic interests?  None.  One can also point out that certain inter-war fascisms, such as Condreanu’s Legionary movement, were not based in a foundation of hegemonic militarism, but were rather focused on internal renewal and thus did not characterize reckless gambling with national genetic interests.  So to my mind national socialism/fascism, correctly implemented, are still “in the running” as political systems capable of promoting EGI.

What about the argument that these “extreme” political philosophies are unrealistic, that “the average White person won’t accept them.”   Let’s be realistic, and not the crazed dreamers mocked by Roger Griffin in his works on fascism.  The most minimal objectives of racial nationalism – even stringent ethnonationalism – are today completely unrealistic and would be rejected by the large majority of Whites.  However, if – and that is a big if – these objectives could ever be realized, it would be during and after a period of extreme crisis, a collapse (slow or fast, partial or complete) of the System, a situation in which Whites driven to the wall by dispossession and the hostility of the now-decaying System, would be willing to listen to reason.  At this time, the sheeple will be considerably less picky about what forms of government they would, or would not, be willing to accept.  Also keep in mind Shakespeare’s “a rose by any other name” admonition – if the tenets of national socialism are actualized under some other name, fine, if it’s called Futurist Collectivism or Western Patriotism or Klassen’s Racial Socialism, or something else entirely, all well and good.  And if the lemmings are at such a condition they would not care if they rallied behind overtly named national socialism, all well and good as well.


This discussion will most likely continue in future posts.

Bowden: Never Apologize

Mostly wise words.

There’s some good material here.  First, a concise and useful contrast between Right and Left – not based on “economics” – but based on the (true) Right’s belief in inequality and hierarchy, while the Left is obsessed with a false egalitarian equality.

Bowden rightly advises to never apologize, not to “say sorry” to justify forceful action. He includes not apologizing when being called “fascist” – indeed, he tells us that there nothing is wrong with fascism, a point certain elements in the “movement” cannot accept.  True, there are activists who truly are not in any way fascist, and that should be respected; in addition, no doubt there are tactical reasons why, at specific times (and those times only), true fascists should be prudent in displaying their ardent fascism.  But in general, many people in the “movement” (whether they know it or not or accept it or not) are fascists (broadly defined) of one sort or another (including national socialists; national socialism being – dissenters to the contrary – a race-based form of fascism).  These activists should accept the label and, as Bowden suggests, never apologize.

The only discordant chord for me is the part about resentment.  After all, resentment over real victimhood can be a powerful force, and, if used tactically via democratic multiculturalism, can be utilized as an approach to increase power.  There is a difference between mobilizing resentment (and hatred) for actualizing power, and wallowing in victimhood and beseeching for pity.

The RFR Strikes Back

Strom speaks some truths about the Alt Right.

RFR = Radical Far-Right; that is, the racial nationalist Far-Right that is not connected to the “Alt Right” and that which also rejects “mainstreaming” and other centrist ploys.

I identify as a national socialist (*), and I suspect that Strom identifies similarly.  I also have strong sympathy for non-national socialist fascist movements such as the Romanian Legion, the early and late Italian Fascists (not the middle era of reactionary authoritarianism), and also the very interesting variants of French fascism (typically ignored by a Germanocentric “movement”). I do not know how Strom views these various non-German fascist movements.  I do disagree with Strom on certain things – e.g., I am not fond of the Pierce legacy, I am ambivalent about the Germanocentric Hitler, I looked askance on Strom’s “Man on White Horse” infatuation of Putin, and was disillusioned about Strom’s self-declared involvement with the Who We Are fiasco (although Strom asserts that the extant version is not the “final version”) – however, in general, I suspect that Strom and I agree on the basics (**).  We certainly agree about the Alt Right. Now, remember that that nasty old crank Ted Sallis was always skeptical of the Alt Right, noted that their “fifteen minutes of fame” were over, viewed them as another “movement” passing fad, and noted that unless Alt Right leaders became serious and actually did real work, the advantage resulting from the Trump campaign would be lost.  

THE AMORPHOUS disunited non-group dubbed the “alt right” and defined mainly by a rejection of Political Correctness and a wish that Donald Trump would be elected instead of the War Hag, seems to be dissolving before our eyes. On the one hand, you have the “alt light” who are either horrified — or pretending to be horrified — by the racially loyal and Jew-aware elements in their own ranks, and who are falling back into line within the boundaries of the corpse called Conservatism, Inc., where they will quickly be forgotten no matter how many book deals they sign. On the other hand, you have the rest, who are beginning to realize they have been played by Trump and/or Trump’s keepers; but who also realize that they have tapped into something real — something authentic — something of deep world-historical importance and biological and cosmic significance — by becoming aware of the primacy of race and the fact that the Jewish power structure is out to kill us. It’s only the second group that’s interesting. There’s real hope for them — and, if we can help them to full awareness and commitment, there’s real hope for all of us in them.

Quite right. Just as Trump has – as Alt Righter Spencer has noted – squandered his political capital on jackass tweets and non-essential issues, the Alt Right, in typical quota queen fashion, squandered its fifteen minutes of fame with Pepe-Kek nonsense and any lack of real accomplishment. “Dissolving before our eyes” – that’s not from the crazy crank and ethnic outsider Ted Sallis but from the Norwegian-American and “Establishment Movement Figure” Strom, “one of the boys.”  I’m shocked, shocked!  Strom, like me, mocks the Alt Right’s fetishistic obsession with Trump and – while he unfortunately declines to mention the Alt Wrong – he makes the distinction between the Alt Lite and the more hardcore Alt Right, the latter which should have never had anything to do with the former.  Strom suggests that the more hardcore faction has some “real hope” – but let us acknowledge that an awakened Alt Right that rejects the Alt Lite (and Alt Wrong) is really nothing more or less than White nationalism.  Yes, there may be differences in style, but in the end, shorn of all the Beavis-and-Butthead trolling and lulzing and shorn of the Alt Lite and Alt Wrong, the Alt Right is just White nationalism with a snazzy “dust jacket” packaged for millennial consumption.  Strom, like me months ago, has seen through all the sound and fury of the Alt Right, has seen through the Alt Right bluster, has seen through the “we’ve arrived” self-congratulation of Alt Right figures, and asks that the Alt Right grow up.

Maybe where I was ignored, Strom will be listed to.  More likely though, we’ll just see more Pepe images and cries of “Hail Kek” and discussions by Roissy about his Black girlfriend’s “gravity-defying ass” or about his Asian girlfriends sticking their fingers up his anus. Hail Kek, indeed.

The Alt Right is failing; it is – as Strom says – it is dissolving.  The “mainstreamers” are failing in Europe and in Australia.  Trump is squandering is political capital.  All of the Alt Right-Mainstream-Trump “heroism” is falling apart, and it is high time that the RFR stops being on the defensive and seizes the high ground; it is time for the RFR to end its marginalization by the Alt Right.  The RFR must strike back against the losers driving the ‘movement” into the ground.  We do not need Pepe-Kek stupidity, a “movement” infiltrated by Jews, Iranians, and East Asians, we do not need Trump worship, miscegenating “game,” or any of the rest of it.

The passing fads fade away, and the racial nationalist hardcore will soldier on.

*I can imagine being accused of “LARPING” as a “Nazi” that will turn off “normies.”  I have two objections to that.  The more immediate objection is that there is a difference between being a national socialist and a Hitlerian Nazi; the former is an ideology and a worldview and the latter is a highly specific historical party and movement that was based on the aforementioned ideology/worldview.  And let’s be honest: “normies” are turned off by the ideology of the more mainstream racialists who accuse others of “LARPING” so it really doesn’t make a difference what flavor of racial nationalism one espouses.

I have a deeper objection. While I have used Alt Right-adopted slang terms like “LARPING” and “normies” myself when appropriate, I’m beginning to tire of them – particularly “LARPING” – because they are being over-used and mis-used.  There are people who believe they can win arguments simply by accusing their opponents of “LARPING” – a sloppy form of ad hominem that fails to address substantive arguments.  It is one thing to point at Nutzi types marching around with swastika banners and cry LARPING and it is quite another to label as LARPING any ideology or meme that you disagree with.  For the sake of consistency, if I’m going to reject the Alt Right, I should reject their shallow and juvenile memes as well, so I’ll try and refrain from using these phrases and I’m not going to tolerate them being used in place of actual argument.

**But how can this be?  Strom is a “virulent anti-Semite” but the Silkers accuse me (someone also accused of being a “virulent anti-Semite”) of being a “tool of the Jews” and of “sucking Jewish cock.”  How can Strom and I be in agreement?  Cognitive dissonance!  Can it be?  Can someone be both anti-Jewish and anti-Asian? Who would have ever thought it? Hmmm…one wonders how vehemently Strom would object to Asian colonization of White lands, “British Asians,” and the borders of the West guarded by black-booted Chinese girls with guns.  Is Strom a “tool of the Jews” as well? Oy vey!

A Fascist Theoretical Journal?

Taking an updated look at Stimely’s idea.

The Keith Stimely interview of H. Keith Thompson, with a heavy emphasis on Francis Parker Yockey, is very interesting. Perhaps the most intriguing part is this exchange:

Stimely: One final question. Supposing that a group of young, relatively young, fascists – not conservatives, not [sneeringly] “populists,” not reformers not people who believe in working evolutionarily within the system, not people who believe at all in saving the system (and who may “work evolutionarily” within it only in order to undermine it) — suppose such a group were to get together and decide to publish their own little journal on the “right,” even in the modest form at first of an 8-page newsletter, entitled Thought & Action, which would be a very nearly explicit fascist theoretical journal working toward the explicit goal of a fascist revolution. Such a journal would explore in the realm of theory the contributions that have been made in political/social thought, and that should be taken into account by present-day revolutionaries, by such as Robert Michels, Vilfredo Pareto, Gaetano Mosca, Georges Sorel, even, Lawrence Dennis, Max Nomad, James Burnham, so many more . . . Yockey, Spengler, Carl Schmitt, Harold Lasswell, other prime thinkers on the subjects of power and revolution and social dynamics . . . and to explore all these things on a fairly high intellectual level. My question is: what is your realistic estimate of the number of people who would either understand, or be at all interested in, such a publication? Thompson:One hundred.

Such a journal would be very useful, but today, it would need to expand its focus to include the Salterian empirical view as well as the more political-social-spiritual “continental existentialist” view as emphasized by Stimely.  One could envision that the fusion of those two worldviews (Salter-Yockey) would be a main objective of such a journal.
Some would argue that blogs such as this one as well as Counter-Currents, together with publications such as The Occidental Quarterly (TOQ) fill this role.  While those forums do touch on some of the topics I am talking about, what I’m proposing is something more in line with Stimely; a more focused and specialized journal, for fascist/national socialist “revolutionaries” – combining both metapolitics and politics. Such a journal would be not only explicitly (actually, not just “very nearly”) fascist and national socialist, but also explicitly pan-European, Futurist, science based (both hard science and the best of political and social science), with a solid philosophical and epistemological foundation. This would be something for the “hardcore” – not for the run-of-the-mill “latrine flies.”  It would not be ‘public” in the free online sense, more of a TOQ format, but perhaps even requiring screening of subscribers, to eliminate infiltrators and trolls as much as possible. The typical “movement” dogma would be eschewed; this would be an attempt for a fresh start, based on the aforementioned key principles, perhaps based on the key fundamentals here.

Hitler Quote: Fascist Dictatorship in Germany

From the very mouth of Saint Adolf.

From Flood’s Hitler: The Path to Power, a Hitler quote from 1923:
Germany’s hope lies in a Fascist dictatorship, and she is going to get it…

Adolf’s talking about himself and the NSDAP here. Contra to the idiots who believe there is no connection between national socialism and fascism, even the Sainted One himself understood that national socialism was a variant of the broader “fascist species.”

Hitler: The Path to Power

A good book. 

I am re-reading Flood’s book about Hitler’s early years (up to his release from prison after the aborted putsch).

This is an excellent, reasonably objective (only a small bit of pointing and sputtering at Hitler’s views and actions, although those instances, where they do occur, seem like the author desperately – and amusingly – trying to establish his anti-Hitler bonafides), well-researched book, and I recommend it to those interested in Hitler, history, and/or national socialism.

The book also truthfully describes Hitler’s excellent record as a solder in WWI, in contrast to modern revisionist attempts to discredit Hitler’s performance.  Say what you will: Hitler was a fervent supporter of Germany’s entry into WWI, and he fought in that war. Contrast that to today’s levantine Neocons, who love to start wars that other folks have to fight. I don’t quite remember any of the Necons riding into Baghdad on top of a tank…

I have been critical of Hitler and of the “movement” Cult of Saint Adolf, and I will continue to be so. However, one must state an obvious fact: Hitler was a great man, a world historical figure, an interesting individual of great talents and high intelligence, and he was right about 90% of things. If only he had concentrated more on domestic German affairs and pursued in foreign policy a Fascist International approach rather than military hegemony, if only that 10% of error were not so glaring, then I would be able to have a more positive appreciation of his role in White history.