Category: fascism

Book Reviews: Griffin and Lowell

Books by Roger Griffin and Norman Lowell.


Roger Griffin, Fascism: A Quick ImmersionTibidabo Publishing, Inc., 2020

This book is an unoriginal rehash, a dumbed down version, of his previous “scholarly” work defining fascism and a fascist minimum, as well as of his work on the groupuscule concept; this new book is likely intended as sort of a handbook about fascism for hygiene-challenged Antifa and lard-enhanced blue-haired SJW fatties.

Griffin’s definition of fascism – centered on palingenetic ultra-nationalism – remains sound. Anyone who believes that Franco was a fascist or that Trump is a fascist is an idiot.  In this sense, Griffin remains correct.

However, the fact remains that the Left is congenitally unable to understand fascism and fascists and they ignore or misinterpret the lessons of Griffin’s work. Not for them are analyses of “palingenetic ultra-nationalism” or understanding of the revolutionary and dynamic nature of fascism. No, for them, fascism is simply reactionary oppression; thus, Franco was a fascist, Trump is a fascist, Wall Street stockbrokers are fascists – any White person to the right of Karl Marx is a fascist. They understand nothing, learn nothing, and their approach to the Far Right is simply bashing heads and censoring dissident voices.  Griffin’s beloved Left is intellectually and morally bankrupt, depends upon brute force, and has no use for his work.

Roger Griffin in this latest book expresses his usual tiresome shtick – he always dedicates his books to “the victims of fascism” and/or piously pontificates how the “real readers” of his books are so-called anti-fascists who can use his work to “diagnose and treat” the “disease” of fascism. His attitude toward fascism and fascists is one of snide contempt. However, in reality, the true readers of his works on fascism are fascists themselves – the proponents of the “Universal Nazism” that he decries as a major player in post-WWII fascist metapolitics – the Far Right being the only area of the political spectrum today where actual intellectual ferment occurs. Thanks, Griffin. Although no thanks are required for the volume under review here, as it breaks no new ground and is a rather pallid effort, with zero utility.

In this remarkably unoriginal book, Griffin once again repeats one of this constant tropes – fascists (i.e., the real Far Right) are impotent, desperate, powerless, and because of the “structural” nature of modern sociopolitical reality, fascists have absolutely zero chance of achieving any of their goals.  So, besides the obvious question as to why Griffin has dedicated his entire career to fixate on this useless, impotent, and powerless creed (*), we are left with another question – why is the Left/System always screeching about “the rise of fascism, the threat of fascism, the resurgence of fascism” if the Far Right is such a powerless joke with no chance whatsoever of achieving power?  Griffin argues – and I agree with him here since the facts are incontrovertible – that the whole leftist spectrum (from Marxist Antifa to Marxist university professors to the mass media to the political class to the typical blue-haired fatty) mistakes right-wing populism, paleoconservatism, identitarianism, and rightist reactionary authoritarianism as “fascism.” So, yes, if everyone to the right of John McCain and Mitt Romney is “fascist” then there is a resurgence of “fascism,” but that is just the stupidity and the paranoid fantasy of the Left. Those individuals and entities are not fascist, and so Griffin can continue to assert that not only is the Far Right completely powerless today (a fair assessment, but one lacking in context) but will always be so, regardless of context (not a fair assessment).

What Griffin terms the real existential threat – worse than Nazism and Stalinism – are ecocatastrophes and other such threats to human existence, which he claims will become more likely if the (non-fascist, but still bigoted and hateful) anti-liberal Right comes to power. All humanity will perish in a cataclysm because of, say, Trump or Le Pen or Bolsonaro or Brexit or Salvini.  Any deviation from SJW multiculturalism, any deviation from a pathological altruism that embraces every “other,” any deviation from crazed xenophilia – that is going to threaten humanity.  All those intolerant White bigots will not and cannot effectively address the looming ecocatastrophe.

Thus, Griffin in this book has jumped the shark – or, more precisely, jumped the pachyderm – to write what may be the most juvenile and cringeworthy sentence in the history of childish leftist polemics:

Meanwhile, as Trumpism and the Brexit debate illustrate, the looming ecocatastrophe is still the elephant in the room, a metaphor that before long may have a tragic ring to it when the only elephants are left in zoos.

Jumbo weeps.

Well, after all, as we know, Negro transsexual lesbians and obese blue-haired neo-Marxist SJW feminists, who cry about microaggressions and about the patriarchy, and who “deconstruct” science and technics as the White Man’s ju-ju, are going to save us all from ecocatastrophe. Yes, the descendants of people who never invented the wheel are going to lead us to the stars, as long as we don’t reject “democratic pluralism” and as long as we blindly and self-destructively accept “otherness.”

Of course, the very opposite is the case. Griffin’s tolerant liberal democracy leads to a complete rejection of science; we’ve reached the point where university professors are disciplined for saying that men cannot become pregnant.  These are the people who are going to save us from an ecocatastrophe?  Is Black Lives Matter going to solve global warming?  Are critical theory advocates going to stop an asteroid strike? Is a ghetto gangbanger going to divert a comet? The only people who have demonstrated the scientific and technical capability to prevent an ecocatastrophe are those who Griffin’s work is intended to dispossess and, eventually, displace and replace. Griffin’s own ideology will help to bring about the ecological, physical, and cultural destruction he allegedly fears. It is multiculturalism, and the wages of diversity, that result in the hemorrhage of material resources, the loss of collective social goods, and the decline of community engagement (hello Putnam!  does Griffin “bowl alone?”) that will truly contribute to ecocatastrophe and human extinction.

I would like to end with two examples of why I hold Griffin in contempt. As part of his constant refrain of how modern fascists are a pathetic and powerless group with zero chance of achieving their goals, losers who cannot compete with the structural advantages of the victorious liberal democracy that the masses love and support, he demonstrates that he is either extremely stupid, so ideologically committed that he his blinded by a complete lack of self-awareness, or a mendacious and hypocritical gaslighting liar.

Griffin mocks Greece’s Golden Dawn as a “spent force” whose activists are on trial for being members of a “criminal organization.” That Griffin sees this as a victory for liberal democracy is simply astonishing.  WHY is Golden Dawn a “spent force?”  Was it defeated by liberal democracy in the marketplace of ideas?  No.  Golden Dawn was a potent force, increasing in popularity, and was attacked through political persecution by a liberal democratic state using “fascist” tactics of criminalizing political dissent. Thus, Golden Dawn is now a “criminal organization” – after all, it opposes liberal democracy and any dissent from liberal “tolerance” is unacceptable and must be criminalized – and its members are put “on trial” in a manner no different from the show trials of Stalinism. This, according to Griffin, is proof of the pathetic weakness of the Far Right – that it becomes so popular to the people, and so threatening to the liberal democratic state, that tolerant liberal democrats are forced to criminalize political dissent, jail political opponents, ban political parties, and censor political speech.  Griffin sees no problem with that.  He simply uses the criminalization of Golden Dawn as evidence of their ineptness without questioning whether criminalizing political dissent is compatible with the liberal democracy he so strongly espouses.

Then he mocks Britain First for having a large online presence but being unable to attract more than a handful of people to show up for a live rally, where they were out-numbered by antifascist protestors. Griffin neglects to note that the “anti-fascist protestors” are violent thugs who are protected by the State; in essence, Griffin’s liberal democratic system uses criminal Antifa as stormtroopers to break up legal Far Right public events with brutal violence. The Antifa terrorists work hand-in-glove with the police and with the state security apparatus; if rightists defend themselves, it is they who are arrested and prosecuted.  No wonder that the Far Right doesn’t manifest many activists in street rallies these days.  In the context of the brutal repression by the liberal democratic state – and I haven’t even mentioned “hate speech” prosecutions and convictions in Britain that are used to suppress dissent (as they are throughout Europe) – any Far Right presence is impressive and should be applauded.

At no point whatsoever has Griffin’s liberal democracy engaged with the Far Right on a level playing field. At every point, liberal democracy uses authoritarian – and sometimes totalitarian – techniques of political violence, political repression and subversion, criminalization of speech and of dissent, to prop up their system.  Liberal democracy – and the Left in general – is intellectually, politically, and morally bankrupt. The fact that a so-called champion of liberal democracy such as Griffin blithely accepts political suppression of his opponents as “business as usual” demonstrates that the real “leakage” of “fascist ideas” into the mainstream has been the adoption of intolerant “fascist” techniques of political repression by the liberal democratic system.  Indeed, Griffin himself has been “tainted by fascism” since he accepts and applauds “fascist” techniques that are used to stifle ideas that displease him.

Further, even though the American “movement” is pitifully inept, “led” by affirmative action incompetents, it is still true that it has NOT been defeated in a free marketplace of ideas, but instead has been met with a combination of political persecution, street violence, selective prosecution, deplatforming, social pricing including termination of employment, and other assorted methods of authoritarian coercion that has nothing to do with classical liberalism or democratic procedures. The American Far Right has been suppressed by political thuggery and by criminal conspiracies to deprive activists of their basic constitutional civil rights.  This is essentially a tacit admission by Griffin’s vaunted liberal democracy that it had lost the battlefield of ideas. All that it has left is trying to win the battlefield of force and coercion.

This is true historically as well. Hitler was defeated by war; Mussolini was overthrown because of the war; Codreanu was murdered by the State. Fascism has never been defeated by liberal democracy in a free marketplace of ideas; it has only been defeated by brute force, by the “tolerant liberal state” using the tools of ruthless coercion, political persecution, and total war. Again, liberal democracy always adopts the tactics of “fascism” in order to defeat fascism; it is unable to do so on its own terms.

Griffin is a laughable turd indeed, the very incarnation of Nietzsche’s Last Man, the very embodiment of the sissified White Cuck.
What a buffoon.

*I suppose Griffin would argue that even though the Far Right is pathetic and powerless, certain of its illiberal and bigoted ideas can seep into the mainstream, through the filter of right-wing populism, and so must be studied and opposed for that reason; further, he asserts that pitiful and desperate fascists will conduct lone wolf terrorism and so are a limited threat in that sense. Even with all of that, the amount of his life energy put into the study and opposition to fascism is orders of magnitude out of proportion to the reality if he really believes the aforementioned are the only real long term threats to the liberal order from the Far Right.


Norman Lowell, Jesus the Usurper: Murderer of Christ, Norman Lowell, 2020.

This is the third in Lowell’s series of books, after Credo and Imperium Europa; this one stresses “spiritual” issues.

Now, at first glance I may be ill-suited to handle the task of reviewing such a work, since I am relatively uninterested in spiritual issues, focusing instead on the political and science/technics sides of racial and cultural issues. Needless to say, I am hostile to religion, organized or otherwise. However, these characteristics may in fact make me particularly well suited to tackle this task, for it may well be useful to have someone approach a spiritual work from an “outsider” position, purely objective without a “dog in the fight” so to speak.  In this sense I can examine Lowell’s arguments without being biased due to a pre-existing strong religious belief on the subject.  As a “third party observer” to spiritual and religious disputes, I can render a verdict based purely on the arguments made.  Of course, the book also needs to be critically examined by those who have more expertise (and “skin the in the game”) on this subject; nevertheless, my own viewpoint may be a useful supplement.

The foreword to this rather slender volume was written by an acquaintance of Lowell’s, a Kevin Ellul-Bonici, described as a “former police investigator and prosecutor specializing in fraud and economic crime,” as well as someone involved in “Eurosceptic” politics. This individual claims to disagree with aspects of Lowell’s book and this is clear from the tenor of the foreword, particularly in its pro-Christian ending.  This individual, interestingly, claims that the Jews are not actually the prime movers in the conspiracy against the truth, which he instead avers are…the Jesuits.  Now, I do not wish to be close-minded, and I certainly am no expert on these affairs. I do not doubt the pernicious influence of the Jesuits throughout history, but I am – let us say – skeptical that they are the high point, the very top, of the global conspiracy. Indeed, I doubt that any single group is, but instead several powerful groups with interlocking interests – Jews, Jesuits, global capitalism, the Left, the rising tide of color, among others, are responsible.  Things get worse in the foreword with a dive into anti-materialism in the sense that the ultimate cause of our troubles is assigned to “extra-dimensional beings and the Luciferian agenda.” The author, unlike Lowell, takes a pro-Paul view in the midst of Christian apologia, and states that “The Man of Reason can never grasp how Christ redeemed us by paying the price on our behalf as descendants of the fallen Adam. Reason would rather have us believe the lies of this world then in His second coming.”

With all due respect, this is, in my opinion – as a “Man of Reason” – ridiculous nonsense, and completely against the message of Lowell’s book. On the one hand, one can admire Lowell’s open-mindedness and confidence in his own arguments as to invite a contradictory foreword; however, as a “Man of Reason” my overall reaction to the foreword was a loud sigh followed by a face-palm.  That is exactly the anti-reality, anti-the-real-world attitude, rejected by Lowell (and Nietzsche), which has contributed to our current demise. Oh, what damage two thousand years of Christian lies have wrought!  Crush the infamy!

Lowell himself in this book takes the view of Nietzsche that the traditional, “official” Jesus of Christianity was an invention by the Jew Paul to undermine the Roman Imperium, spreading a doctrine of weakness and surrender, making people disregard the heroic work required in the real world in favor of some (mythical) otherworldly paradise suited for the weak and the botched.  Lowell instead sees Christ as being Caesar, who was valued by Nietzsche as a form of superior human being.

This type of “Christianity,” focused on the higher values of Life, coupled to an Aryan Cosmotheism, is what Lowell sees as the spiritual way forward for European Man. A Nietzschean religion, allied with Cosmotheism, that elevates Caesar as an ubermensch to model ourselves after, is fine by me (although I would prefer no religion at all). But, surely, such a religion – Caesar as Christ – is far from any traditional understanding of Christianity and cannot be termed as such, nor would it be accepted by the public (or even by most elite activists) as such.  It is something completely different, and requires its own terminology.

All in all, Lowell’s contribution is interesting and thought-provoking. One thing though is that I’m not very fond of references to “Atlantis” and such.  A minor point. 

Overall, a good and useful book.

Style over Substance

Italian incompetence.

I have been looking at a number of websites and scholarly articles examining the issue of Italian military incompetence.  Some of these emphasize the most egregious example of this – the World War II (WWII) experience – and others take a broader, long-term historical view, with at least one author asserting that claims of Italian military incompetence can be found as far back as the sixteenth century (or earlier).

With all manifestations of human phenotypes, there are both biological and cultural mechanisms at play, and, of course, the biology and the culture influence each other. We must look deeply here. Some articles (and this is mostly with respect to WWII and to a lesser extent WWI) cite “poor equipment” (but others argue against this) and “poor leadership” from the officer class (who were mostly Northern Italians, by the way), but even if there is some truth there, that begs the question as to why the Italian state and military apparatus was so inept as to provide poor equipment and poor leadership to its soldiers.

The idea that this stereotype goes back centuries suggests deep-seated biological (e.g., genetic pacification starting with the Roman Empire and the dysgenic effects of war during the Roman Republic) and cultural (e.g., “La Dolce Vita,” amoral familism, a lack of a military tradition starting with when provincials and mercenaries began – to an ever-increasing extent – replacing Italians in the Roman Legions, etc.) causes. That Italians are not taken seriously as a people, in the same manner as, say, the Germans or the English, or even the French (or Spaniards for that matter, who have a much better military reputation than do Italians) is something that is very deeply rooted in Italy’s history (and by Italy I speak historically over the centuries and not just the modern Italian nation state).

One comment I found particularly interesting was that – and this again was in particular reference to WWII – Italian Fascism promoted style over substance.  Thus, the Fascist regime did not prepare the Italian military in any real sense – training, morale, an effective officer corps, equipment and other material, etc.  There was a lot of empty blustering about “eight million bayonets” but nothing substantive behind it.  It was a paper tiger, a fraud, a big show – style over substance.

Indeed, style over substance is a defining characteristic of Italians, perhaps THE defining characteristic.  Italian Fascism is a perfect example, but there are others.  Cola di Rienzi had impressive dreams, but no idea of how to actualize any into reality. Schettino is another excellent example, the stereotype of the flashy, superficial Italian womanizer, doing fancy tricks with his ship, but who is useless during an actual emergency and who becomes a meme for incompetent cowardice. Or The Great China Plague of 2020, met with Italians “singing on balconies.”  Empty and superficial – style over substance in every respect.

To the extent that this is biological, the Italian people desperately require eugenic improvement.  To the extent that it is cultural, degenerate elements of the culture – the whole “La Dolce Vita” stupidity and the emotional gesticulating “singing on balconies” paradigm – needs to change. Wine, Women, and Song need to be replaced with Authority, Hierarchy, and Discipline.

Let’s consider Italian Fascism in more detail – in what ways did it go wrong?  What could have it done instead to put substance over style in all things, including military competence and effective collective action?
Italian Fascism went in the wrong direction at its most fundamental basis. It emphasized the State, while it should have emphasized The New Man (like Romanian fascism) as well as racial improvement (like German fascism).  Italian fascism was externalized (the pipe-dream of a “new Roman Empire”) while it should have been internalized (to build a New Italy). Instead of comic opera wars against Ethiopia and Greece, Mussolini should have instead waged war against the Monarchy and the Church. He should have waged unrelenting war against “La Dolce Vita.” Instead of empty style, Il Duce should have delivered transformative substance.

f Mussolini was a real revolutionary with a dedicated vision, and far-sighted strategic planning, this could have been accomplished.  He could have slowly but surely removed pro-monarchy elements from the military and state apparatus, and replaced these with individuals who were both dedicated Fascists and also of high merit and ability.  He could have slowly but surely worked to lessen the influence of the Catholic Church over the lives of Italians, particularly the youth. He could have made fascitizing the society priority number one, with an emphasis on the youth, particularly boys and young men. He could have harnessed the vibrancy of Futurism as an underlying ideological force, focused on industrialization and science and technics, and slowly but surely (as religion waned) promoted eugenics and racial improvement. The Italian military should have been focused on for two purposes – to build a modern force of high morale and effective striking power to safeguard Italian sovereignty and Italian interests WITHOUT wars of aggression but to defend the Italian state and people (enabling Italy to be safely neutral in WWII) and as a school of national development for young men to learn discipline, sacrifice, authority, hierarchy, and heroism. Foreign policy could have followed the Montreux Conference model of promoting fascism throughout Europe and forging alliances of common interests with European fascist movements to help build a New European Order of cooperation, NOT military conquest.

These are things that would have been perfectly feasible, given Mussolini’s decades in power (and he would not have been deposed in 1943 if Italy had not been involved in the war).  All of the fascist energy should have been turned inward, to purge Italy of “La Dolce Vita” hedonism and instill in the youth a sense of purpose and greatness. Real improvements in industry, education, culture, military, and science could have been achieved.  Eugenics to improve the stock and undo centuries of dysgenics and genetic pacification could have been instituted, to biologically enhance the Italian breed, to go along with the important cultural changes. 

Mussolini’s war against the mafia was more or less effective (although that could have been done better as well), indicating that firm internal action was possible (the mafia was brought back to power by the Americans). That same drive and determination should have been applied to society as a whole. The Catholic Church was (is) a mafia, the Monarchy was a mafia – those deserved the same treatment as did the criminal mafia itself.  Of course, the tactics would have had to be different, the timetable slower.  But the ultimate endgame should have been the same.

But, no. Instead, Mussolini was the Donald Trump of European fascism – all bluster, no action; all style, no substance.  A blustering, bloviating fraud.  Talk loudly and carry a twig.

And so, in 2020, we get “singing on balconies” – essentially Schettinoism applied to the covid-19 response.  My dear Italians – you need less singing and more fighting.

The purpose of this post is not merely yet another critique of Italy and the Italians. Italy is an important cornerstone of Europe, particularly of Western Europe.  Italy – along with Germany, England, France, and Spain – was always cited by Yockey as one of the core pillars of his Western Imperium. Ultimately, Italy will be one key to ultimate success for the White, Western cause.  Therefore, that nation and its people need to do better than Schettino jumping into a lifeboat and do better than “singing on balconies” in response to the Chinese war of genocide against Italians and the rest of humanity.

Of course, nation-wide comprehensive change cannot occur under the present System.  But we need Italians to begin to step up now, as they are today. Not all of them, but there has to be a healthier, right-wing element that can begin to foreshadow, today, the New Italian of tomorrow.  The Italian Far Right needs to step up and become a key player, a serious player, for the fight for the West and for the White Race. And we need them to start right now.

It is time for substance over style. It is time to become a hammer of history and not an anvil.

The time for “singing on balconies” is over. 

Odds and Ends, 6/21/20

In der news. In all cases, emphasis added.
Another example of how ethnonationalists ruin everything they touch:

1999, a manifesto of a second ‘European Liberation Front’ was published in Paris, but there is apparently no more active organisation of that name now. The manifesto takes its ideological inspiration from Yockey, and from Otto Strasser, who was expelled from the Nazi Party by Adolf Hitler in 1930.

Despite the pan-European style of its title, the ideology of the manifesto is ethnic and racial nationalism

Take over the name of Yockey’s organization and then promote an opposing ideology.  Very good!  Hail Der Movement!

Authentic pan-Europeanism does not exist in any organization of which I am aware over the last 50 years or more, except Lowell’s in Malta.

Forney on Spencer Part I.Part II.
Note that I do not agree on Forney on all his comments, but, nevertheless, the rank-and-file needs to understand where their affirmative action program leads.  I also find Forney’s glee at Spencer’s problems unseemly.  It is not funny, it is a tragedy.  I don’t care about Spencer himself, but we all need to realize that the White public – you know, the folks that your “movement” wants to recruit from – do not make fine distinctions between Spencer, Johnson, Forney, Taylor et al.  It’s all one.  Spencer’s downfall therefore reflects badly on the entirety of racial activism in the public “mind.”  
That downfall, ultimately, derives from the lack of judgment of “movement” “elites.”  Spencer should never have been allowed to be the head of NPI in the first place; that position should have gone to an older individual with more experience, maturity, and gravitas. Spencer should instead have been groomed for electoral politics, as the smiling young face of the Far Right, with mature adults as his behind-the-scenes handlers. 
The past cannot be changed. But going forward, the affirmative program needs to be eliminated.  That is step one.  It’s not a case of a single rotten apple that needs to be gotten rid of, it’s a whole case.  And as soon as one apple becomes so horribly decayed that it is thrown out, another one joins in. The entire crate needs to be thrown out, and the entire process of picking rotten apples changed.

A sincere man of genuine greatness.

Glad to see we got dem dere Republican conservative judges like “Earl Warren Jr.” Roberts there.

I’m no fan of Rushton, but the retraction of his hypothesis paper was unfair and disgusting, and I agree with this analysis, which is a refutation of leftist hysteria that helped get the paper unfairly retracted.  I also agree with the analysis in that the author of the leftist attack on Rushton-Templar doesn’t understand what pleiotropy is, possibly confusing it with epistasis (or who knows what).  I am also amused by the leftist critique of Rushton-Templar for having a “political bias.” Hoho!  What about the leftist critic’s bias?  Would he care to inform us on his views on say, race in America?  What’s his party affiliation?  Who did he vote for in 2016? What about, say, Lewontin’s biases?  Any comments on that?
If the Rushton-Templar paper was inherently flawed – even as a hypothesis – and this somehow escaped the notice of the reviewers at that time, then the appropriate response is to write a paper (for publication) refuting the Rushton-Templar logic and/or do studies that produce data refuting the Rushton-Templar hypothesis. Retracting the paper is politically motivated censorship, leading us to a scientific dark ages. The retraction is a disgrace.

Hey, it’s time for Trump to tweet LAW AND ORDER!  That’ll fix it.  Fat Don is like, you know, demonstrating his sincerity and his genuine greatness!

I was looking at Amazon reviews of Robert Griffin’s One Sheaf One Vine book, of interest to me since I am one of the people featured in it.  Two excerpts from the comments I found amusing:

1. Interesting anthropological study. Nothing really new here, but contains only interview available of Alex Linder. No other interviews with people who would go on to become personages. 

That’s a stinging rebuke of my lack of accomplishment I suppose.

2. Another observation I make, is that none of the people in the book, offer any solutions to the racial problems they criticize. In numerous cases, they simply flee those high-‘diversity’ problems by moving to other, whiter states. But none of them seem to envision the new domiciles undergoing future change.

Let’s see.  I spend a significant portion of my interview talking about practical things that should be done.  So it would seem that this individual lacks any reading comprehension skills whatsoever.  As well, with respect to the second half of the criticism, I’m not one of the “numerous cases” since that’s nowhere in my section.
Also interesting is that if you search on Amazon for a book like this, you get “suggested reading” consisting of a host of anti-White diatribes.  Like Google, Amazon is another company I am going to personally “deplatform” from any spending.

Thus in summary: Sallis right, Johnson wrong.

Kevin Strom:

The purpose of the race that is is to bring into being the race that is to come. Let’s concentrate on that. Let’s concentrate on being the ones who decide that.I have been in this cause of ours for nearly 40 years. I have seen and heard and read so much wasted verbiage about why Russians or eastern Europeans generally, or southern Europeans generally, or even other odd subracial or national combinations should be read out of the White race. I have heard it all, please don’t repeat it to me. I’m sick of it.
The group or groups which coalesce to save our endangered race will be the ones who determine its genetic future. Beyond the obvious aesthetic that we know White when we see it, and a future that can include (but not be totally ruled by) accurate genetic testing, that’s all we need to know. If the White future is primarily Russian or Hungarian, so be it. If the White future is primarily pan-European American with strong German, Anglo, and Irish components, so be it. If the White future is predominantly Greek or Italian or Bulgarian or Nordic, so be it. None of us are in a position to pick and choose right now, nor does such picking and choosing make sense during this crisis.
Let’s just admit that every single group and sub-group of Europeans has racially devolved — due to dysgenics, due to genetic drift, due to past mixtures. Let’s just admit that every single White nationality could be — and, if we have anything to say about it, will be — helped by a healthy dose of eugenics.
But never forget this: We are targeted and marked for death as Whites. It is as Whites — not as dolichocephalic Red Nordids, or Paleo-Atlantids, or western Europeans only — that we must become awakened and fight back.

Very good; I obviously agree.  But then Strom has to admit that much of the work of Pierce and of the National Alliance was and is de facto opposed to that pan-European view. As regards Pierce accepting people with fractional Amerindian ancestry (and Pierce’s gibbering about “Caucasian” Amerindian tribes is nonsense – whatever their appearance, they are racial aliens from Asia), we must remember that the “Indian princess” stories – real or imagined – typically derive from “Nordish” Anglo-Americans. They’ve always gotten a “pass” for that – the “Pace Amendment” for example.

By the way, even Yockey himself wasn’t immune to a touch of Nordicism, with respect to his rhapsodizing about “Northern barbarians” in both Imperium and, more especially, Thoughts Personal and Superpersonal. I suppose we can forgive Yockey for that lapse, since the broader “movement” he derives from has always been marinated in Nordicism, but it is rather hypocritical of him given his pontifications about horizontal vs. vertical race.  And what would he think today, with all of the “Northern Barbarians” being the biggest race cucks of them all?

And by the way, Yockeyites past and present should know that The Doctrine of Fascism they so admire was really written by Giovanni Gentile, not Benito Mussolini.  But Gentile was one of those two foot tall superstitious Sicilians who so vexed Humphrey Ireland, so who cares about facts?

Newly discovered!  A film clip of Humphrey Ireland being overwhelmed by the scurrying Sicilian hordes.

Typology Nationalism?

A dual track?

Let’s consider the latest ethnonationalist vs. pan-European “dust-up,” triggered by Johnson’s unprovoked attack against pan-Europeanism.  Now, it is my opinion that much of these attacks are motivated by underlying pernicious agendas, and alleged support for an ostensibly authentic and honest ethnonationalism is equally motivated by such unsavory agendas.

But let us for the sake of argument assume sincerity on all sides. Let us further assume that ethnonationalism, albeit regrettable, may be somewhat understandable in Europe itself, with all of the old World historical grudges, feuds, and inter-ethnic animus that exist there, as well as the stronger ties of ethnicity, blood, and soil in the Old World. But why would White Americans be so fervently ethnonationalist?  Again, I aver unsavory motives, but if we put that aside, can we consider the possibility that certain personality and ideological and temperament types – typologies – may predispose activists to be ethnonationalist or pan-European (the “pat” answer of Nordicists that pan-Europeanism is a “Med thing” is not supported by the evidence of well-known Northern European-derived pan-Europeanists).

So…typology.  Note that although we are starting this analysis with White Americans, the same applies for Whites everywhere, including Europe. Just because Europeans may have a somewhat greater excuse to go down the ethnonationalist rabbit (or hobbit, eh?) hole, does not mean that the same psychometric and ideological characteristics are not in play there as well. There are both European ethnonationalists and European pan-Europeanists.

Consider my fascist typology. It has a discussion of the types of “movement” ideologies typically associated with each time.  Of course, it’s not always going to be a perfect match; there will always be exceptions. But if suffices for our purposes. Thus, ethnonationalists and Nordicists are typically Type Is and pan-Europeanists are typically Type IIs. If we make the reasonable assumption that the Type I vs. Type II distinction is inherent in an activist’s character, a more or less fixed trait, then we may well wonder whether trying to convert people between being ethnonationalists or Nordicists on the one hand, and pan-Europeanists on the other hand, is essentially a useless exercise.  And perhaps that is one reason why people defend these ideologies so vehemently – their identity, at least their activist (if not personal) identity – is intimately tied into being one sort of “ist” vs. another. Just as “conservative” vs. “liberal” tends to be innate, so may be certain intra-“movement” distinctions.

So, should we then have a dual track, typology-based nationalism? The Type Is can do their ethnonationalism (or Nordicism or whatever other narrower form of identity politics), while the Type IIs can do their pan-Europeanism. The former can be the “Outer Party” working in their more specific sphere while the latter (“Inner Party”) works at the higher level, moving between these various smaller identities and integrating them in a whole.  So, you have dual tracks, usually working separately, but in the same general direction, with some cooperation between them. This would be analogous to Norman Lowell’s distinction between Dominion (the more narrow level) and Imperium (the broader level, which deals with High Politics).

Some time ago, I wrote:

I would argue that—at least theoretically—a person can be, at the same time, both pan-Europeanist and Nordicist, or pan-Europeanism and pan-Slavist, pan-Germanist, ethnic nationalist, etc., so long as the all the latter “ists” in question are of a “defensive” nature, and that the pan-Europeanism respects and values narrower particularisms. Of course, even if this is true, it is natural to expect that certain levels of ethnic interests would be more important to an activist than others (e.g., a Russian may be a Russian nationalist first, a pan-Slavist second, and a pan-Europeanist third).

More importantly, even if this melding of activist identities does not often occur in the real world, it should, at minimum, be possible for individuals identifying themselves solely as pan-European or Nordicist or pan-Slavic or pan-German or Basque nationalist-separatist or English/British nationalist to productively and respectfully work together to achieve common objectives, even if there are important points of disagreement remaining between them. 

So, what about the basic question – is a dual track, tolerant, typology nationalism possible?The answer: No.  As I’ve previously asserted, I was dead wrong in that Counter-Currents article. The problem is that ethnonationalists (i.e., ethnoimperialists) and Nordicists are themselves too intolerant; they view pan-Europeanism as a threat to their niche space. Therefore, cooperation is not possible.  Note that every time there is one of these “dust-ups,” it is that side – the ethnonationalists, Nordicists, etc. – that is always the aggressor. For example, out of nowhere, Johnson had to mendaciously attack pan-Europeanism. In the various Nordicist vs. pan-European arguments (or even the Nord/Med debates), it’s always the Nordicists who were and are the aggressors. I have personal experience with Nordicists always trying to infiltrate pan-European groups, to divide, to subvert, to cause problems, to wreck pan-European White solidarity and the groups’ function. An older example of that is the whole Rockwell-Patler-Pierce fiasco; the relationship between Rockwell and Patler was stable until Pierce entered the scene, pushing the American Nazi Party into a Nordicist direction and undermining Patler (who would have been better off with Madole and the National Renaissance Party). I won’t even mention the Tommasi tragedy.  

So, cooperation is not possible, and Nordicists cannot be allowed into pan-European groups or they’ll wreck them, and infiltrators, once identified, have to be ejected (the same applies to Medicists, but they are a powerless and inconsequential “movement” faction, if they actually exist within Der Movement). Essentially, the same applies to the hardcore ethnonationalists, who are actually ethnoimperialists.  True enough, given the concentric nature of group identities and genetic interests, one cannot take the same very broad hard line with (mild) ethnonationalists as with the Nordicists; there is nothing wrong with a pan-Europeanist also having some allegiance to smaller, more focused areas of identity and interest. But narrower identity has to be secondary; a hardcore ethnonationalist who puts – or pretends to put (for ethnoimperialist reasons) – their narrow group first and foremost is a destabilizing element and does not belong in authentic pan-European politics. It goes without saying that HBDers – who worship Jews and Asians and who favor aracial cognitive elitism – also have no business in any pan-European group.  As HBD is in essence literally defined by opposition to pan-Europeanism, any HBDer would be an infiltrator, a disrupter, an agent provocateur, a mole, in a pan-European group.

So, perhaps unfortunately, the tolerant dual track model of racial nationalism, based upon fitting people into roles best fitted to their innate typologies, won’t work, because most Type Is are inherently hostile to pan-Europeanism (*). There is no compatibility whatsoever; to defend themselves against this raging intolerance, pan-Europeanists must be intolerant themselves. It is justifiable self defense.

However, the association between Fascist Typology and ideology, while strong, is not absolute.  While there are very few Type II ethnonationalists (and perhaps zero Nordicists), there are a (minority) fraction of Type Is who are at least amenable to pan-Europeanism; some may actually openly support it. Others may be completely neutral, or so weakly ethnonationalist that they are in that small group who actually can be changed (that does not conflict what is written above, which deals with the more typical majority of cases).  So, while converting the more hardcore majority – or plurality – of the Type Is may not be possible, making the argument for pan-Europeanism to Type Is can still be useful, as long as we understand that we are targeting only a thoughtful, open-minded minority.  Further, even though we may not be able to convert the others, we possibly can decrease their hostility, so they can promote an ethnonationalism that exemplifies positive ideals rather than just being a knee-jerk rejection of pan-Europeanism (this better attitude would seem more likely with European activists, who would tend to have a more positive ethnic nationalism for reasons explained above).

*That some of the more dishonest of them use Yockey in instrumental fashion is possible only because Yockey himself is not around to denounce them. One can only imagine what FPY would think of individuals who write pieces “in defense of petty nationalism.”  The mind boggles.