Legionary Lessons, Part II

Part II, the New Man.

See this. 

I have long understood that the Legionaries hit upon a core fundamental idea that escapes today’s activists – that there is something more important than ideologies, political programs, memes, and dogma. This fundamental idea is improving the human material upon which you will build your movement. Renewal of self, renewal of the moral capital of the individual, creation of The New Man, all of this is essential to ultimate victory. Trying to establish a movement on a foundation of human detritus will quickly lead to complete collapse, as we see today.

The idea of targeting the idea of human quality is for me perhaps the most important issue missing from current White racial activism. If there is one single difference between the Legionary Movement and Der Movement it would be the emphasis on The New Man in the former and the complete lack of an interest in the quality of human material in the latter.  Obviously, I favor the view of the Legionaries.

I have read the following interesting article:

Valentin Sandulescu – “Fascism and its Quest for the ‘New Man:’ The Case of the Romanian Legionary Movement,” Studia Hebraica, No. 4, (2004), pp. 349 – 361. [Quotes from that article are in italics.]

Not control over the means of production was important, but the ‘new man’ about whom all fascists talked. He was man made whole once more, aware of his archetype and of those with whom he shared it, and activist in that he was not afraid to join in a revolution which would make society correspond to the longings of his soul.

First you reform the people, starting with the activists, then you use that human material to build a new society.  Today’s “movement” believes it can build a new society with human trash, and then “fix things” later on.  Delusion.

What else can I add to that?

I have suggested for today’s “movement” a period of strategic withdrawal, a retrenchment, a rebuilding phase, a period of renewal – for racial activists to straighten out their acts, build real infrastructures, and become worthy, before putting themselves forth loudly and publicly. This can be done right now, with limited resources. It is an internal, not external, project. It can be done “under the radar.” Certainly, some subset of activists can get involved in electoral politics – at this time NOT directly associated with the “movement” – and, certainly, behind-the-scenes community building can take place. But this is NOT the time for rallies, confrontations, and feckless “leaders” (grifters) making bombastic public proclamations.

So, here is an important point. If the “leadership” of a “movement” is of extremely low quality, and rise via an ethnic affirmative action, then what can one expect from the rank-and-file?

Hence, it is not sufficient to try to push through your political program, promote your ideology, with the degenerate filth passing themselves off as “activists.” You need the highest quality people to actualize your ideology into reality.  That is why the attitude of “you work with who is available” is so wrong-headed, so destructive, and why it has led to constant failure.

I believe the basic “nest” structure – essentially a cell structure – is sound. It is of a manageable size, breeds camaraderie, and, in theory, if compromised, the damage would not contaminate the organization as a whole.  I say in theory, because the System’s legal structures would attempt to hold the whole responsible for the actions of an isolated part. Here we see the need – the absolute requirement – for not only the highest quality of activists with iron discipline, and not only proper vetting to try to prevent infiltration (“are you Swedish” or “are you a film critic” does not constitute proper vetting, by the way), you also need a proper legal defense infrastructure and “friends” in the political apparatus.  All of which the “movement” doesn’t have, after decades of “activism” and after squandering millions of dollars of followers’ money.

That is all straightforward. I have been pushing these ideas for years. It has all been ignored.  Even worse – when people in Der Movement talk about “rejecting defectives” it is all lies.  Not only do these people continuously embrace defectives, but they themselves are often highly defective.

The image of the Legion as a spiritual school designing a “new man” was appealing for many young people, especially students. They joined the Legion with the genuine belief that they could be part of something historic.

Meanwhile, “activists” today are for the most part hobbyists, with grifting “leaders” constantly panhandling for donations.

Character and moral rebirth – these are the essential ingredients sorely lacking in today’s “movement.”  Without them, victory is impossible. Without them, defeat is assured.  With them, victory is possible.

The “new man” remained an ideal only partially fulfilled, and the Legion ended in violence without putting its regenerative project into practice. Nevertheless, its impact on Romanian interwar political life was a salient one.

And it is even more salient today. If there is ONE single thing I would advise White racial activists to do today, it would be to emphasize, to focus on, character and moral rebirth, to focus on The New Man.  With that, anything is possible.  Without that, nothing is possible. Although ideology, science, intelligence, strategy, et al. are all crucially important, they take a back seat to character and moral integrity.  You cannot build a worldwide revolutionary movement on a foundation of quicksand; you cannot build a victorious movement on a foundation of freaks, grifters, phonies, frauds, the morally defective, perverts, liars, gaslighters, deranged fetishists, tin-foil-hat conspiracy theorists, individuals with all sorts of completely superfluous hang-ups and bizarre theories, weaklings, traitors, and all the rest. We have to remake ourselves before we try and remake the world.

I would like to point out one quote from Codreanu’s For My Legionaries that is of relevance, concerning how Codreanu chose “larger unit” leadership:

I nominated no leader for village, district or county. I told them: “Conquer and organize! And, as much as you can organize, you will be chief over.” I just confirmed them leaders in the positions to which their power, qualities and aptitudes elevated them.

Quite right. The New Man conquers and organizes and proves his worth through effective action. Although I wonder. Given the poor quality of human material in Der Movement in America today, I wonder how many individuals who proves themselves effective leaders as per Codreanu’s approach would be authentic activists and how many would be highly trained infiltrators and informants?  Proper operational security is more important now than ever.

Quotes:

Corneliu, make out of our country a country as beautiful as the sun, powerful and obedient to God.– Ion Mota

The essential thing is the spirit of sacrifice.

We all of us have the most formidable dynamite, the most advanced weapon of war, more powerful than tanks and machine guns: it is our own ashes! Every power in the world is destined to collapse, whilst it remains with the ashes of brave fighters, fallen for Justice and for God.   – Ion Mota

HQ and JQ

Hitler Question and Jewish Question.

There are some people on the Dissident Right, Liddell for example, who critique Der Movement’s Hitler worship as well as its fixation on the Jews.  To some extent, I believe that these critics have a point, although they go too far in the other direction. Let us consider together.  First, we will look at the Hitler Question (HQ) and then at the Jewish Question (JQ).

I agree that Der Movement’s worship of Hitler – and of Germanism in general – has been ludicrous, hence the name “Der Movement” to mock the “movement’s” Germanic obsessions. From a pure “optics” standpoint, voluntarily bringing up Hitler every five minutes is obviously a mistake. What about from the perspective of historical and ideological analysis?  There were many positives about National Socialism – the organic solidarity of the ethny in a race-based state, the use of state power to further bioracial objectives, the collectivist view of putting the well-being of the ethny ahead of individualist agendas, a more egalitarian class structure that corrects some defects of capitalism, etc. But Hitler also added to this ideology Germanic militarism and expansionism, Nordicism, and other bizarre racial theories that were irrational (e.g., viewing similar ethnies as almost disjunctive species – Germans vs. Slavs as a prime example), an anti-Semitism that – while justified – likely went a bit too far, and other defective tangents.  It is primarily because of Hitler than the Fascist International idea died during the 1930s. However, it must be admitted that from a purely domestic German perspective, the Hitler regime was a resounding success (even if flawed). The major problem was with foreign policy, the Nazi regime’s dealings with the outside world.  Thus, we got WWII and all of the evils to the White race that came as a result of that war. If one reads Irving’s Hitler’s War – and Irving cannot reasonably be accused of anti-Hitler bias – it is clear that the war was not necessary.  It was in fact Hitler’s war; there were inflection points at which war could have been avoided.  For example, if Hitler had stopped with expansion after the Munich agreement, then war was not inevitable, at least not the world war that ensued.

The only real defense in favor of Hitler’s foreign policy is the hypothesis that the USSR, if left unmolested, would have eventually successfully conquered continental Europe, and that the UK and the leftist FDR regime, both infested with communist agents and sympathizers, would have done nothing about it, or would have failed to reverse the conquest even if they had tried.  Thus, this line of reasoning goes, Hitler’s invasion of the USSR disrupted Stalin’s plans, resulting in the USSR only grabbing the less developed eastern half of the continent, and making Western resistance to the Soviet Union possible. This theory, by extension, would claim that all of Hitler’s other military actions were in preparation for his move east and thus all needs to be viewed through the prism of disrupting Soviet plans.

Now, this hypothesis is not completely implausible and therefore my condemnation of Hitler’s foreign policy is not absolute. The USSR was a threat and one that the “Western democracies” for various reasons did not seem to take seriously. However, there are three flaws with this excuse for Hitler’s actions.  First, it counter-balances a hypothetical possibility against the actual reality of the catastrophe that did occur because of Hitler’s war. Second, Hitler’s war aims were not to disrupt a Soviet conquest of Europe, but to conquer living space in the east and reduce the native Slavs to a lowly helot class.  Further, the French campaign cannot be said to be purely for “setting the stage for the east;” Hitler has other fish to fry there. Third, Hitler has other possible strategies to forestall a Soviet conquest of Europe even if we assume that was his aim. He could have joined with Mussolini to build a “Fascist International” in Europe, promoting fascist movements taking power, combined with judicious anti-Soviet alliances with states like Poland (instead of allying with the USSR to carve up Poland).  An agreement with the UK would have been possible if Hitler was of a different temperament, and if he was not a Germanic hegemonist bent on conquest. This is all besides Suvorov’s “Icebreaker” theory that Stalin wanted to use Hitler as a battering ram to weaken the West before a Soviet invasion, with the German invasion of the USSR coming as an unpleasant surprise.  According to this thesis, much of Hitler’s foreign policy moves – with the obvious exception of the invasion of the USSR itself – were actually furthering long-term Soviet objectives. All in all, I am not convinced that Hitler’s war was necessary. However, going back to domestic policy and how this ties in with international affairs; to the extent that Hitler prevented Germany from going communist on its own, and then allying with the USSR to carve up the West under the banner of Marxism, Adolf can be given credit there.  But this does not excuse German militarism and aggression against other Europeans.

All in all, Hitler worship is a mistake. That does not mean we need to jump on the anti-Hitler liberal democratic bandwagon. Hitler should be looked at objectively, with one eye on “what was his effect on White interests?” and the other on “optics.” I am not going to blindly denounce Hitler just as I will not blindly praise him – and the same goes for any other leader or personage.  For example, I am not going to denounce people like Yockey or Codreanu, who I admire, warts and all, just for the sake of “optics” and the same goes for Mussolini and for Fascism in general.  

What about the Jews? I stand by my long-standing assertion that the Jews have been necessary but not sufficient for White decline. Without the Jewish contribution, things would not have got so bad so fast; thus, Jews have played an integral role in these problems. However, the Jews alone did not cause the problems; instead, with unerring focus and great skill they manipulated underlying White weaknesses and various perfidious trends. Think of Jews as akin to an enzyme catalyzing a slow and initially unfavorable reaction.  Without the enzymatic catalysis the reaction may not occur at all or may occur very slowly (and definitely reversibly). In the presence of the enzymatic catalysis, the reaction quickly and efficiently proceeds to completion. However, the enzyme alone can do nothing, it must have all of the reaction components in order to work; the enzyme must have a substrate to work upon. The substrates were all there – High Truster love of Coloreds and a Racial Proximity Theory hostility to other Whites coupled to the aforementioned love of Coloreds, lower ethnocentrism among Whites, High Truster conformity and shame culture, swarthoid ineptness that left them unable to resist High Trust liberalism and insufficient ethnocentrism among the swarthoids themselves, a tendency of Whites to think in terms of objective abstractions leading to bizarre outcomes such as favoring universalist morality and economic productivity over racial self-interest, hyper-rational empiricism that for some strange reason eschews the rational empiricism of ethnic genetic interests, tendencies toward contrarian individualism in some Whites, modernity and its effects on sex relations and White reproduction, etc. But these tendencies have been around for a long time and while they have done much damage, they did not become an existential threat to White existence until malicious Jews leveraged these tendencies to undermine the foundations upon which European Man and Western Civilization rested. In this sense, I agree with MacDonald, and Cofnas and supporters fail in their counter-arguments, particularly since “right-wing Jews” are often destructive as well. Look at the antics of, e.g., Hart (multiracial “White separatist state) and Weissberg (racial status quo) at Amren. There is always the innate Jewish urge to act against White interests, even when acting in the context of a “White advocacy” group.

So, the Jew obsessives are wrong but the critics of the Jew obsessives are wrong as well. Being necessary for evil is all that is required for substantial blame, even if the subject of the blame is not sufficient for causing the evil. But ignoring the underlying substrate is as wrong as ignoring the catalyst. Indeed, even if all Jews were to disappear, the reaction has been catalyzed sufficiently that it can continue to move toward completion; in addition, alternative catalysts (SJW Whites, South Asians) have emerged who have sufficient memetic skills to catalyze White self-destruction sans Jews.

In summary: It is true that Der Movement goes too far with the Hitler worship; the constant adulation and excuse-making should stop. On the other hand, positive aspects of National Socialism and the broader ideology of Fascism should be discussed in a reasonable manner. The so-called Jewish question should be also discussed; people shouldn’t feel that if they mention it then they will be cast into ideological oblivion. However, discussion of the JQ should be done in a rational and balanced manner, not with a foaming-at-the-mouth obsessive fixation. Not everything is the fault of Jews, there is enough to legitimately blame them for without going to excessive extremes.

Balance in all of these things is important.

I can write more on this issue, but considering the Pareto Principle I believe that I have already covered the core 80% of the argument and that is sufficient.  The HQ and JQ critics are more right than wrong but they go too far. They also fail to provide any sort of comprehensive alternative approach to activism (other than “big tent” – that I have critiqued and will likely do so again) and any overarching vision for the future.

Whither High Culture?

What direction?

I previously harshly commented on Steuben’s Counter-Currents essay about a “Spenglerian High Culture,” which I considered inferior to my own essay on a Overman High Culture (links to both essays contained in the EGI Notes post link provided). Others have critiqued the Steuben piece; for example, see this.

If you are a planning a book I have another objection which might interest you. It is that Spengler himself is the ultimate Faustian man, and his work is essentially Faustian – Spengler himself stands outside of all history, making repeated pronouncements on how nobody before him had understood history as well as he, for he has to rise above all cultural cycles to be able see their forms. In many ways he is a 20th century Faust. And therefore a new cultural epoch, if it was truly new in the Spenglerian sense, could only look with incredulity and probably contempt at Faustian spirit of The Decline of the West. They would certainly consign such a book to the flames, for any non-Faustian people would find the idea of stepping outside of history incomprehensible, hubristic, and absurd. Whatever their world feeling, it will not permit Spengler’s foray into a space outside of all peoples, all cultures and all of history. To do this is essentially Faustian. Rather, they will be fully rooted within a world view and a world picture, as all peoples and cultures are except one, the Faustian one. Indeed this is also the proof that we ourselves are still Faustian people, for we too could hardly comprehend adopting such a world view, and certainly could never be at home in it. For good or ill we belong to this Faustian world and only a truly Faustian person can take seriously a project like The Decline of the West.

If one looks at my criticisms of the Steuben piece, as well as criticism from others, such as that quoted above, it is clear that my own Overman essay suffers from some of the same problems. It is certainly prescriptive, not descriptive. More to the point, it is obviously derived from someone with a Faustian mindset; indeed, one can certainly critique my essay as advocating a “new” High Culture that is nothing more or less than a “super-Faustian” one: Faustianism without limits, without inevitable failure, the road to godhood. What could be more Faustian than that?

That is all true. However, I have two ripostes to that argument.  First, as I have suggested over the years, we should not be so deeply wedded to Spengler’s thesis in its absolute form. Yes, it does have some explanatory power. Yes, in its broad outlines, it may well be true. That doesn’t mean one needs to accept all of it, in every detail, particularly with respect to some of Spengler’s more dogmatic assertions and predictions. A dedicated Spenglerian would deny any upward trend in human history; it is merely cyclical, with each High Culture, and component of each High Culture, being (objectively) no better or worse than all of the others. Yockey – certainly a “dedicated Spenglerian” – classified both the Egyptian and Western/Faustian High Cultures as having “mighty technics,” as if there is no real difference between several large pyramids and a modern city with its plethora of towering skyscrapers, or between a chariot and an atom bomb.  At the very least, science and technics, together with the standard of living, has shown an upward trend. Is that subjective from a Faustian perspective? Well, if you say so. However, if you really believe that there have been no objective scientific/technical advances in human history then who is being objective and who is being subjective? The assertion of improvement in things such as ethics is, I will admit, more subjective, but strong arguments can be made here as well that ethical standards, at least among those on the Right, have become more refined, and here among European Man if among no other group.  I would argue that if history is “cyclical” then it is manifested by an upward spiral of cycles, but, perhaps, that it is only true of European Man. Certainly, all of the advancements in the human condition – or nearly “all” of them – both material and otherwise, have sprung from the minds and efforts of only one of the various extant hominid races (or species). That of course means that future advancement would be dependent on the continued existence of that people; and their demise would doom “humanity” (more, properly, hominidity) to a true futile cycle of “high cultures.” Here is some objective analysis – if the Earth were threatened by an extinction event, such as an asteroid or comet strike, only one of the Earth’s High Cultures up to this point in time would have the will and the capability to recognize the threat and do something about it, and that is the Western/Faustian High Culture.  None of the others have had the will or the capability, and Steuben’s Bring Out Your Dead hobbit hole “high culture” certainly would not. Isn’t the ability to potentially save humanity, and save the existence of “high culture” itself, at the very least a manifestation of objectively superior science and technics?  And, objectively speaking, the ability to destroy humanity, also characteristic of the same high culture, is a negative objective manifestation of that same innate superior advancement in science and technics.

If Spengler is incorrect in that, then one does not need to consider him and his thesis as infallible. Perhaps other things Spenglerian can also be re-considered. Can a certain High Culture, particularly one defined by constant upward striving and over-coming, experience repeated rebirth rather than permanent death?  Is the act of Spenglerian self-awareness of historical cycles, made possible by a Faustian “standing outside history,” which itself is a manifestation of the Western/Faustian High Culture, the spark that would allow the Western/Faustian High Culture to escape the fate of others?

Second, I have to say (and this may be ascribed to me being embedded in a Faustian mindset), if the death of the Faustian High Culture, and its replacement by something new, means a devolution of the human condition, if it means the triumph of backwardness, ignorance, of Counter-Currents’ dream of cowering Whites hiding from life “snug in their hobbit holes,” then please count me as a Culture Retarder who will fight for the old Faustian High Culture and would reject the new. Or, count me as someone who rejects Spenglerian inevitability, and rejects that the development if a new high culture is a purely undirected organic process, and count me as someone who wants to intentionally guide the development of a new culture (i.e., to the Overman direction). That may be “pseudomorphosis” – but who cares?  The higher development of humanity is more important than Spenglerian dogma.

It is important for people on the Right to move away from blind dogma and simplistic explanations and accept the complexity of reality, of life, and of the human condition in general.  It is better to try and fail than not to try at all.  At least the former approach contains the possibility of victory while the latter dooms you to defeat.  If one is to go on a doomed Faustian quest to influence the future of High Culture, then at least make the attempt to be reaching for something higher, rather than hastening a collapse into a hobbit hole of backwardness and of endless despair for humanity.

On Democracy

Three thoughts.

1. Fascism is more honest than liberal democracy – fascism doesn’t hide who the true leaders of the nation are. Fascism also doesn’t fool the masses in thinking that they, instead of a powerful elite, run the nation.

2. Democracy is such a wonderful approach for running human groupings that it is not used in the military, not used in business, not used in academia, and not even used in professional sports. In any human endeavor where winning is essential, hierarchy is observed and democracy does not meaningfully exist. Indeed, as point one suggests, liberal democracies don’t actually practice real democracy either.

3. Looking at the historical cases that came the closest to true democracy, like ancient Athens, political participation was limited to the most capable and responsible element of the population.  When considering republican forms of government that utilized true democracy as much is realistic in such a system, like the early American republic, political participation was likewise limited. Indeed, limiting political participation is likely the only way that any system even somewhat approaching true democracy could ever be viable.