Category: history

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.

Proximate White Racial Interests?

It’s wrong to emphasize the proximate.

Let’s consider this again.  I object to basing pro-White arguments solely on proximate issues of Whites being better with respect to some traits.  See my arguments here (at TOO of all places!):

…that what’s it is all about is race and genetic interests, not about legality, IQ, economics, the environment, or what have you.  It’s about White vs. non-White demographics in America, and all the rest is a smokescreen obfuscating this key point…Summary: It is about Race, or the Race-Culture; it is about genetic interests, and these are things that can be, in the long run, defended only by Explicit Whiteness. If we can’t talk about racial interests as Whites, we can’t win. All these other arguments are ultimately meaningless if they don’t serve ultimate interests.

It is inherently dangerous to center the debate about White interests on proximate issues. After all, one can always make arguments that other groups manifest the positive traits in question and in some cases may manifest these proximate positive characteristics better than do Whites.  To put it crudely, only Whites can be Whites, but Asians can be “high-IQ and law-abiding.”  Which then is the more stable and directly definitive argument in favor of White interests: White uniqueness as a people in the sense of a distinctive extended kinship family or arguments that Whites are better than other groups in certain ranked traits?

By the way, remember Senator Vaile’s defense of the Reed-Johnson Act:

Let me emphasize here that the restrictionists of Congress do not claim that the “Nordic” race, or even the Anglo-Saxon race, is the best race in the world. Let us concede, in all fairness that the Czech is a more sturdy laborer … that the Jew is the best businessman in the world, and that the Italian has … a spiritual exaltation and an artistic creative sense which the Nordic rarely attains. Nordics need not be vain about their own qualifications. It well behooves them to be humble.What we do claim is that the northern European and particularly Anglo-Saxons made this country. Oh, yes; the others helped. But … [t]hey came to this country because it was already made as an Anglo-Saxon commonwealth. They added to it, they often enriched it, but they did not make it, and they have not yet greatly changed it.We are determined that they shall not … It is a good country. It suits us. And what we assert is that we are not going to surrender it to somebody else or allow other people, no matter what their merits, to make it something different. If there is any changing to be done, we will do it ourselves.”-Cong. Rec., April 8, 1924, 5922

Thus, kinship-based arguments independent of claims of superiority, have already been successful in American history for appealing to the high trust northern hunter gatherers.  Why then use HBD proximate arguments that can be hijacked to promote the interests of Jews and Asians?  Unless of course that is the real intention.

This reminds me of Ian Jobling, whose “activism” on behalf of Whites was motivated by his belief that Whites were the only group capable of prompting the liberal democratic universalist values – including Rawlsian ethics of all things! – that he espoused; essentially he thought Whites embodied the leftist egalitarian creeds hastening our destruction.
A problem with basing pro-White activism on proximate values is that it legitimately smacks of the very sort of “White supremacy” that kinship-based White nationalists are unfairly accused of.  Indeed, if you are going to argue that Whites are important to you precisely because they are better at X,Y,Z than are other groups – and in some cases claiming that Whites are unique in being the ONLY group capable of manifesting these positive traits and creating the desirable societies resulting from such traits – then how else will that be construed other than overt White supremacy?  Such an approach will likely repel Herrenvolk Whites even more than a simple kinship-based “we are all one big extended family” approach to the problem.

But, hey, maybe I’m wrong.  This can only be determined empirically.  If the MacDonald-Duchesne school of thought is correct, then they should achieve success in using their strategy to push Whites toward the “ethnicized individualism” they envision.  Does anyone truly believe they will achieve such success?  Hasn’t all of these proximate arguments already been made – and failed spectacularly?

Now, those are comments about the prescriptive components of the MacDonald thesis.  I’ve already commented and critiqued the descriptive.  I’ll say only one thing.  How about trying to demonstrate the validity of genetic-based ethnic behavior by examining whether these behaviors are stable in novel environments – like the USA?  Can differences be observed between, say, Anglo-Americans and Swedish-Americans on the one hand, and Italian-Americans and Russian-Americans on the other?  Here I talk about people of unmixed ethnic ancestry, whose families have been in America for 100+ years.  If the traits are inherited, it should be stable in the New World.  If the argument is that the differences are an emergent trait of having communities of these peoples, instead of isolated families, then I suppose you can compare Swedish-Americans in Minnesota to Italian-Americans in New Jersey.  Of course, the same approach applies to non-European peoples as well.

Laugh at this.   MacDonald doesn’t seem to comprehend that by his own theories (!), the Herrenvolk ancestry of those two is precisely the reason why they support the Left, and will continue to do so.

If one wanted to adopt a top-down approach as part of their overall activist strategy, targeted White elites, particularly wealthy White elites, then the optimal approach would be to target individuals for which there was at least a slight possibility of sincere conversion to the cause. In contrast, Bezos and ex-wife have very clearly demonstrated that they are committed enemies of White interests, with no indication whatsoever of being susceptible to change.  To the extent that their “northern European extraction” is relevant here, then – according to MacDonald’s own theories – that would make them less, not more, likely to accept pro-White arguments and to be converted to promoting White interests.

MacDonald’s tweet merely demonstrates the strong hold Nordicism still holds over Der Movement (Nordicism here defined in its broadest sense, by ancestry, since if we consider phenotype, then Bezos resembles a cross between a Jew and an earthworm).

It is baffling how the author of the Jewish trilogy – an important piece of serious scholarship – can descend so far as to make such childish Type I tweets.

In any case, that tweet is a perfect example of the dogmatic fetishism that has led the “movement” to decades of unremitting failure.  Instead of focusing on the “low hanging fruit” of (allegedly) “modestly collectivist” Southern and Eastern Europeans, your “leaders” fixate on wealthy Herrenvolk who have an objectively documented history of giving hundreds of millions of dollars to fund your racial enemies.  At what point are the rank-and-file going to wake up and realize how they are being so badly misled?

But, hey, Bezos is of great benefit to all humanity and we need more men like him!

Competent wops?

Read this.

You may have never heard of Frank Borzellieri, but from 1993 to 2004, he was the most famous local politician in the country. He first ran at age 30, and was releected three times to the school board in the Bronx, New York. He blasted anti-white bias and the idea, that, in his words, “white Europeans are to blame for all the historical troubles of man.” He caused a huge stink and he got more of the vote every time he ran. He lost reelection only because all the school districts in New York City were rolled up into one giant one. He influenced and inspired countless people. If you are smart and energetic, you can do the same.

And he ended up having his life ruined because of his pro-White activism.  To his credit, Derbyshire did direct attention to Borzellieri’s plight and asked people to help, but in general, Frank was abandoned by Der Movement (do we really need to wonder why?).

And then we have:

…it may be that the most important thing you can do is give money to people and organizations doing work you respect. Every activist organization needs money; without contributors they die.“

D’Nations!”  Maybe Der Movement should first demonstrate concrete positive achievements with the millions of dollars they have already received before they ask for more.

They’re “cute.”  T level = zero.

He’s HuWhite.

Here’s something for Andrew Hamilton to enjoy.  See this as well.  But, hey, keep on whining about the odd Egyptian in Napoleon’s Imperial Guard.

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, 7/18/20

In der news.

Sallis (of course) right once again – mainstreaming is an utter failure.  It doesn’t matter the pontifications of Quota Queens and Jekyll and Hyde Frenchmen (or more properly, the singular: Frenchman): There was never any data supporting mainstreaming as a viable strategy, while there is a mountain of evidence against mainstreaming.

Mainstreaming is a failure. Mainstreamers are failures. Dumb “activists,” prancing around as mainstreaming supporters to prove how much more “pragmatic” and “sophisticated” they are compared to us knuckle-dragging “extremist” yokels, are failures.

Perhaps Mainstreaming Marine, who singlehandedly wrecked the Front National, can answer one question for us: If you are going down to one humiliating pathetic defeat after another, then what was the benefit of the compromising of beliefs and the dilution of ideology?

So, dear reader, whose judgment should you trust? The usual suspects promoting (as usual) failure and defeat, in this case via mainstreaming, or Sallis, who has been a clear and open opponent of the mainstreaming strategy for years here at this blog?

Like Trump?

A reason to have contempt against Italians because their behavior allows snide comments such as here:

Chris Needham1 year ago (edited)You forget that Italian tanks had 1 forward and 8 reverse gears. Maybe these elite men had the same philosophy (running away)Hillcapper11 year agoElite protective militia were Italians, that was the problem.Murderous KittenMurderous Kitten1 year ago (edited)italy was bad at everything and anything .

The Italians had the opportunity recently to overcome this reputation (and Schettonism) by dealing with The China Plague in the appropriate anti-Chinese manner.  Instead, they “sang on balconies.” What to expect from a people who butchered Rienzi and Mussolini in like manner for the “crime” of trying to lift the Italians to greatness.  Then there was the cowardly murder of Giovanni Gentile as well.

If the Italians want to put on a show, I have a suggestion other than “singing on balconies.” How about this – a crowd of black-clad, grim-faced Italians marches, with military precision, to the Chinese embassy to lay mock coffins at their door, and hold a protest against Chinese biological warfare against the Italian people. And also, to protest the demographic and economic penetration of Italy by Chinese invaders. Next, the crowd can march on the offices of those Italian politicians who betrayed their people, and facilitated the covid-19 disaster, starting with Mr. Hug-an-Asian.
Start with those things, try and recapture some dignity and gravitas, instead of living down to stereotypes with “singing on balconies.”

Of interest.

In response to Spencer’s call for money:

Greg Johnson@GregJohnsonPhDReplying to @RichardBSpencerDouble of nothing is still nothing.crimson thread@ThreadCrimson

spencers done far more than you ever will which i guess makes you less than nothing.

Does Flahertyreally think that Asians are on the same side of Whites on this?  Can he really be so naïve?

San Marco?  A high trust northern hunter gatherer?