Category: history

Two Levels of Insurgency

Outer and inner.

Any student of insurgency, of warfare against a stronger power, of guerrilla tactics, of dissent opposition, understands that the fundamental strategic objective of the insurgency is to maintain its existence.

Insurgent armies will often avoid full frontal assault against the entrenched power, will engage in hit-and-run tactics that weaken that enemy while preserving the existence of the insurgent force.  The mere continued existence of the insurgency, in the face of a more powerful enemy, is itself a victory, it undermines the power of the enemy and the confidence of the people in that power, and it allows the insurgency to exist to fight another day.  As long as the insurgency exists, it has the potential for overcoming the enemy, if by attrition if by no other mechanism.  The continued existence of the insurgency will attract followers, it will allow for growth and adaption, it may attract the support of other powers; this is why the enemy state prioritizes the complete elimination of the insurgency – “containment” is not good enough, it is an admission of defeat – and why the insurgency itself puts a premium on existence.  Thus, the brilliant strategy of George Washington in the American Revolution, the Fabian Strategy (despite the negatives that strategy can bring and Washington’s own frustration at his critics), that allowed the Colonial army to survive in the field long enough so that important foreign support, and eventual victory, was achieved.

In this context, the Outer Insurgency is that of racial nationalists/nationalists/Far Right against the System, against the globalists.  Priority number one has to be continued existence of the Far Right opposition; after all, if you do not exist, you will be unable to eventually come to power yourself.  At the current time, the power imbalance between the Far Right and the System requires the former to engage in a Fabian strategy and guerilla tactics against the latter, a form of memetic/political/metapolitical ju-jitsu to use the clumsy bulk power of the System against itself.  A wonderful example of this is the “It’s OK to be White” meme, which puts the System in a lose-lose situation. If the System ignores the meme, ignores the posters and leaflets, then it displays weakness and emboldens imitators and others to push the memetic envelope further; if the System acts against the meme, then it “heightens the contradictions” and makes people wonder: “why isn’t it OK to be White?”  The System is forced to choose between being weak and being openly anti-White in a ham-fisted manner; the System cannot simply say, “Yes, it is OK to be White,” since the System’s entire foundational ideology is anti-Whiteness.  That’s a form of ideological guerilla warfare, a memetic insurgency, which attacks the System at its ideological core without putting the existence of the still-weak insurgency at risk.  Priority one: existence.  Priority two: attack and undermine the opposition. Leading to priority three: systematically replace the opposition and achieve power.

The second form of insurgency – the Inner Insurgency?  That’s the insurgency within the “movement” itself; relatively weak dissidents, presented by EGI Notes for example, staking out a niche in opposition to the (in relative terms) clumsy ham-fisted “movement,” which needs to be critiqued and undermined. Thus, it is the first priority for the Inner Insurgency to survive, to have a continued existence, to engage in a Fabian Strategy when necessary, to mimic on a smaller internal scale the same struggle that is taking place on a larger scale at the level of the Outer Insurgency of Der Movement vs. The System.

The “movement” has made this Inner Insurgency necessary by not engaging in the necessary reforms and by not giving dissidents “a place at the table” to bring their legitimate grievances to be aired without being summarily dismissed or labeled “crazy.”

Indeed, this “craziness” derives from the same source as consistently being correct about things, recognizing problems at an early stage, and realizing trends before they become apparent (if they ever do) to the “sane” among us.

I attempt to view things as they are, without sentimentality, or pity, or self-delusion, or moral posturing, or dogma, to get to the core of an issue, understand it, and project trends going forward.

This of course gets me into trouble both in Der Movement and in “real life,” as I come up against people (the vast majority of people fit into this category) who view things through one prism or another of the aforementioned characteristics that distorts their vision, often giving them whatever picture they want to see, or one that comfortably fits into moral conformity and social acceptability.  To them, I’m “crazy” or “bitter” or “impossible” or “autistic” or “cruel” or “cold” or whatever other ad hominem critiques of my character (some of which may have a kernel of truth) that enables the people in question to disregard my message and feel good about their own delusions.  Also, by disparaging my character, these people don’t have to engage with the unpleasant reality that I’m right in my prognostications 99+% of the time.  Rather than dealing with the hard realities inherent in a truthful message, the weak-minded turn their fear and frustration against the messenger.

I am of course not infallible and do make error; this is usually when I am relatively uninterested in an issue or outcome and do not dissect too deeply into it.  For example, I was wrong about Trump’s chances of being elected in 2016; however, while that was important, it wasn’t an issue of deep existential concern for me.  My real interest was how the Trump campaign was affecting the political, social, cultural, and moral climate in America, its potential to promote racial balkanization and sociopolitical chaos, and the long-term effects of Trump on future populist/racialist “demagogues.”  Much of my predictions in this regard have come true, and we’ve seen the spectacle of System hacks like Frank Rich repeating certain points of my The Nazi Next Time essay two years after I wrote it.  So it goes….

The Inner Insurgency continues.

Crush the Infamy!


The Face of the Duce

Also: Introducing Racial Recapitulation Theory.

What can the phenotype of the young Mussolini tell us?

Let’s take a look at the physical appearance phenotype of the Northern Italian (from Predappio in Romagna) Benito Mussolini, as a young man, to dissect certain aspects of “movement” dogma about Italians.

Let’s be honest. If you showed someone those pictures, and if they didn’t know who it was other than being told “it’s an Italian,” you know very well they would immediately say “must be a Southern Italian,” “It’s a Sicilian,” etc. – the extreme non-gracile swarthoid qualities would give the impression that reflects popular stereotypes.  However, Mussolini was, as stated above, a Northern Italian.  I also note that General von Rundstedt once deeply offended Hitler by questioning Der Fuhrer’s friendship and alliance with the “Negroid Asshole” Mussolini.  Did the good general see ll Duce’s Swiss mugshots?

What conclusions can we make based on these photos?

I want to first reply to potential objections to this brief analysis:

1. “This is just anecdotal evidence, a single-point piece of data.”  That’s correct, but Der Movement does the same with all groups (especially S. Italians), using pictures of single individuals as representative of an entire group, so we can do the same here.  There are indeed N. Italians who look like the young Mussolini, so there’s some general utility in the analysis.

2. “I thought you value genotype over phenotype.”  That’s true.  But we do not have access to Mussolini’s autosomal genome.  We do have access to his physical appearance; I’ll use the data at hand.

3. “I thought you wrote that phenotype is an imprecise reflection of the underlying genotype, of the underlying ancestry.”  That’s true as well; however, that is most true for phenotype analyzed as a stand-alone evaluation, and when one ignores available genetic data in favor of a purely phenotypic analysis. In the absence of genetic information, combining phenotype with other pieces of information – such as an individual’s ethnic affiliation – can give some useful information.  It’s flawed and subjective, but insofar as I know, no one has genotyped Mussolini’s remains, so we use what we have.

So, what can we say?

Two major points.

First, it is almost certain that Mussolini could not have been of exclusive Celto-Germanic ancestry (remember that one of Der Movement’s memes is that Northern Italians are Celto-Germanic).

Second, even if Mussolini did have some Celto-Germanic ancestry, it is likely in the extreme that such ancestry was only a minority of his ancestry.  The majority of his ancestry likely derived from other sources.

So, we can ask: what were those other sources?

According to another school of “movement” “thought” (Duke/My Awakening, etc.) Northern Italians reflect ancestry from the original Romans (or at least the original peoples of Italy).  If so, Il Duce suggests that at least some of those original Romans/Italians were quite swarthy and non-gracile indeed.  That goes against that precinct of “movement” “thought” that asserts that the original Romans/Italians were all akin to Dolph Lundgren walking around in a toga.

On the other hand, if you deny that the original peoples of Rome and Italy – or at least some of them – looked like Mussolini, and instead assert that his Swiss mugshots reflect “the racial degeneration due to Roman slavery” then you have to admit that such degeneration spread to Northern Italy, and that the ancestral remains of such degeneration is still present there in modern times.

So, it would seem that Der Movement dogma is at an impasse. Il Duce suggests that either there were real swarthoids among the original Romans/Italians or that Northern Italians are not purebred Romans or not purebred Celto-Germanics, or not merely a mix of the two.  Is it one or the other? Swarthy original Roman populations or racial degeneration in Northern Italy?

The point is for Der Movement to get beyond kneejerk dogma and at least think and consider the implications of their mutually exclusive memes coming into contact with facts and logic.

I doubt that will occur though.

By the way, Mussolini’s phenotype through his life reflects an observation I have made in that European-derived swarthoids tend to be swarthiest and most non-gracile in young adulthood and become lighter and more gracile as they age.  Hormones?  Some sort of racial version of recapitulation theory – “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” – at different stages of their life individuals reflect, to a greater or lesser degree, different aspects of their ancestry (*)?  Thus, for individuals of multi-component ancestry, they would look more like different components of that ancestry at different ages, at different phases of their life.  Would that be from actual differences in gene expression from various ancestrally-different gene segments that affect phenotype?  If so, what is the trigger for the switch – the aforementioned differences in hormone levels?  Some other age-related changes, possibly including epigenetics?  Or is it simply that phenotypic changes in physical appearance that normally accompany aging mimic the effects of looking more like various ethnic types?  This would require further consideration and study.  The former possibility is much more interesting than the latter, and more in keeping with “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.”  Perhaps both possibilities operate.  Again, this would seem to be a potentially fruitful area of inquiry.

Finally, the purpose of this post is to critique Der Movement’s rigid, unquestioning dogma, certainly not to cast any dispersion at a historical leader I admire – Il Duce.  Indeed, with respect to Mussolini, my opinion of him is the same as Yockey’s – Il Duce was a great man, one of the great leaders of history, a flawed man of course, but a man of vision and force.  He was ultimately betrayed by Italian laziness, ineptitude, and hedonism – and he knew it, given his comments about Italians with an analogy of Michelangelo being forced to work with clay.  Mussolini’s phenotype is simply Italian – a reality that Der Movement misses with its view of Northern Italians all looking like actor Dolph Lundgren and Southern Italians all looking like boxer Mike Tyson.

Here is another picture. A Celto-Germanic Nordic on the left, a Nigerian Negro on the right.

*Racial recapitulation theory!  You read it at EGI Notes first.

More Brief Comments on Crowley

Type I follies.


Concerning the Etruscans and their origins, I’ve found the works of Prof. Cavalli-Sforza to be the most convincing. Specifically, he posits that the Etruscans developed in an autochthonous fashion from the earlier Iron Age Villanovan culture.

…support the hypothesis that the genetic structure of Italy still reflects the ethnic stratification of pre-Roman times.

And these are those autochthonous Etruscans – who portrayed themselves as darker than even modern day S. Italians.

There’s a very good possibility that the original peoples of Italy were swarthier, and more dissimilar to Crowley, than are the Italians of today.

Since Crowley is so obsessed with “Viking Supermen” he can reflect on the absence of such men in contemporary Scandinavian populations, which are generally characterized by racial liberalism, pacifism, feminism, openness to invasion, and sociopolitical conformity.  Changes in culture and behavior can occur without Kempian fantasies.  

Frost’s genetic pacification is a more realistic possibility:

Over the last 10,000 years, the human genome has changed at an accelerating rate. The change seems to reflect adaptations to new social environments, including the rise of the State and its monopoly on violence. State societies punish young men who act violently on their own initiative. In contrast, non-State societies usually reward such behavior with success, including reproductive success. Thus, given the moderate to high heritability of male aggressiveness, the State tends to remove violent predispositions from the gene pool while favoring tendencies toward peacefulness and submission. This perspective is applied here to the Roman state, specifically its long-term effort to pacify the general population. By imperial times, this effort had succeeded so well that the Romans saw themselves as being inherently less violent than the “barbarians” beyond their borders. By creating a pacified and submissive population, the empire also became conducive to the spread of Christianity–a religion of peace and submission. In sum, the Roman state imposed a behavioral change that would over time alter the mix of genotypes, thus facilitating a subsequent ideological change.

So, pacified Romans of the 5th century passively watched as Germanic barbarians sacked Rome; today, pacified Scandinavians watch as non-White barbarians sack Stockholm. 

How does that square with the idea that the “high trust hunter gatherers” evolved to be egalitarian altruists from the very start?  No fear, Der Movement Spindoctors will get out Occam’s Butterknife and spread around some more pseudoscientific speculation and it’ll all work out just fine.

How immigration destroyed Rome.  No, not all the “slaves” and consequent “racial degeneration.”  Instead it was the acceptance of unassimilable hordes of German tribes.  The Merkelization of Rome. 

And with that, enough with Crowley and the TOO disaster.

Romans and Germans

Some notes about Ancient Rome.

We all know the “movement” dogma on Rome: originally a moral city state, founded by Dolph Lundgren look-a-likes, it became a morally corrupt, decadent, and degenerate Empire, as “racial mixing” destroyed the “original Nordic population” and repopulated the area with cringing swarthoid subhumans (i.e., modern Italians), to see the degenerate Empire crumble before the moral purity of those stalwart Germans.

Contra to “movement” dogma, it is difficult for normal people, informed historians, and the non-dogmatized educated, to consider the austere Christian Roman Empire of, say, Theodosius I (the last emperor of an undivided empire) as more “decadent” and “degenerate” than the early empire of the patrician emperors Nero and Caligula (Caligula!), or Tiberius, or of the later Republic of Catiline, Crassus, and Caesar, or the earlier Republic dictatorship of the bisexual Sulla (a favorite of William Pierce because of Sulla’s fair complexion- Pierce being nothing if not sophisticated in his historical tastes, Metrobius be damned [or sodomized]), or any of the earlier examples of corruption and rent-seeking avarice.

We can consider the 1942 classic The Roman Commonwealth by English historian Ralph Westwood Moore. With respect to the idea that Rome went from a virtuous city-state to a degenerate empire, Moore classified that as a “pious myth” and further stated: “Morality in the large sense was a thing which Rome achieved as she grew, not a Garden of Eden from which her destiny expelled her or a state of innocence from which she fell.”  Blasphemy!  That doesn’t accord with “movement” dogma so it must be wrong, wrong, wrong – or Moore was secretly Moori, a swarthoid with a Medish agenda!

And of course, there is Ferrill’s military explanation of the fall of Rome, which ironically enough, pins blame on the “barbarization” of the Roman military, as well as dubious strategic choices, as being primarily responsible, along with the obvious difficulty of maintaining such a far-flung empire for centuries against repeated assaults by determined and numerous foes.

Now, from an EGI standpoint, Rome would have been better off not building an empire and becoming a cosmopolitan city to begin with, but the storyline of moral degeneration and fall due to “racial admixture” is hogwash. 

In the battles between Romans and Germans (and Gauls) Der Movement of course historically sides with the latter against the former. There are a number of reasons for this: the typical Nord/Med divide (even though the original Romans are said to have been “Nordic”), that most activists are ethnically derived from stocks akin to Germans/Gauls rather than Romans, the whole dogma of a racially degenerate Empire trying to take the freedom aware from racially pure and noble Germanic “barbarians.” The Type I preference for barbarism over civilization, the knee-jerk Teutonophilia in all things.

We can ask though more objectively what’s going on there.

A more insightful pro-German view is to say that the existence of the Germans as an independent people is what was necessary for the creation of the Faustian Western High Culture after the Fall of Rome, that the Germans racially and morally revitalized a feeble and degenerate empire population, and that the racial integrity of Europe was endangered if Rome conquered Germania, since they would have populated those racially untouched regions with the degenerate cosmopolitan populations drawn from throughout the Empire.

Those arguments are not without merit, but they may be overblown. The Roman conquest of Gaul did not racially destroy the region, although a counter-argument is that France was later racially revitalized by settlement of Germanic peoples. Certainly, a non-ethnic fetishist view is that the demographic impact of Roman cosmopolitanism has been exaggerated.

Nevertheless, if we take seriously the argument that the future of the West as we know it was preserved trough the continued independence of the Germans, then we can reasonably view the Germanic victory of the Battle of Teutoburg Forest as being a positive outcome for the future of the West.  However, later military successes against the Germans in the early Empire period suggests that conquering and administering the region was considered negative from a cost/benefit ration; in other words, practical considerations, rather than the outcome of a single battle, is what led to the Rhine being set as the northeast boundary of the Empire.  Regardless of the reasons, again it can be stressed that the preservation of the Germans as an independent entity was important for the future development of the West.

But there is a difference between that and other battles.  In the earlier wars between Rome and the Germans, for example, the victories of Marius (and colleagues) in the Late Republic Period, it would take an extreme Germanocentric view to argue that the Germans were then on the side of the right, on the side of the West. This was not the case of peoples trying to preserve their freedom, but of barbarians attempting to conquer (and destroy) a civilization that was just them embarking on an imperialistic expansion.  The destruction of Rome at that point could well have short-circuited the progress of culture and civilization in Europe, lost to Europe the fruits of the Classical High Culture, and perhaps have prevented the West from ever coming into being.  It is perhaps not surprising that Der Movement typically forgets Roman-German warfare before Arminius.

What about later wars?  Was the destruction of the Western Roman Empire by the Germans good or bad?  If we take the traditional (and “movement”) view that the (later) empire was completely degenerate, then it was undoubtedly good; however, if we take the view, discussed above, that the later Western Empire was actually more morally sound than it ever was, then the question becomes more interesting.

Rather than frame it in the form of “good” vs. “bad” perhaps a counterfactual analysis would be useful.  What if the Roman Empire, the Western Empire, was able to act from a position of strength in the fourth and fifth centuries AD to reform the European situation to one of a power-sharing confederation mode? What if Rome has won the Battle of Adrianople, and had corrected certain deficiencies and regained some degree of vigor.  What if a wise Emperor had realized that maintenance of a far-flung centralized Empire was no longer feasible (note that the division into Western and Eastern halves was the beginning of this realization) and had reformed the Empire into a Confederation of Peoples – Romans, Germans, Gauls – with cooperation, considerable local autonomy and various common objectives (e.g., eastward expansion, defense against the Huns [Chalons as a crude example of what was possible], etc.).  That may have been unworkable given the attitudes of people of that time; on the other hand, the Gauls were Romanized after exhibiting such resistance centuries before; and, and, at this time, the Germans were no longer the same “barbarians” as in the past, some degree of “Romanization” had taken place, at least to an indirect degree. 

Rome could have at some point attempted to cut its losses, preserve itself as an independent “Mediterranean” power, and come to an accommodation with other European peoples.

Would that have hastened the development of the West, bypassing the Dark Ages?  Or would it have inhibited the development of the West by preserving the fossilized remnants of the Classical past its expiration date?  These are all interesting questions, ones that are never asked by a (itself fossilized) “movement” steeped in inflexible dogma.

That last point is the present relevance of this analysis.  Whether or not ancient historical events meant “this” or “that” are not directly issues of importance.  Getting the “movement” to break free of its blind adherence to fossilized dogma, and develop an increased flexibility of thinking – that is important.  And if at least questioning dogma on the ancient past – mere questioning, not necessarily even any profound change in opinion, but at least an honest consideration of the possibilities – can effect such increased flexibility, then such ruminations are all for the good.

Meet Chad Crowley: Anti-White Activist

Another Type I fetishist.

I am postponing the post originally scheduled for today, to make some brief comments about Chad Crowley, the latest Type I Alt Righter who regurgitates warmed over Kempism, deluded that some novel insights are being made.

Crowley’s all-too-familiar, and, from a general “movement” standpoint, boringly repetitive and grossly unimaginative, ramblings on Rome are both non-historical as well as anti-scientific (*).

I know I’ve seen the name “Chad Crowley” before, and a cursory search brings up sweaty mumblings about “Indo-Europeans” that laughably accepts Gunther as some sort of serious scholar, instead of the embarrassing crank that he was, at, and we can also observe more juvenile Alt Right nonsense at Counter-Currents.  Let’s examine a piece about “Viking Superman” (of course).  Emphasis added:

Viking — the word itself still conjures up the stereotypical image of bloodthirsty blonde barbarians, whose rage can only be sated by acts of pillage and rapine. Fortunately, this dated historical perspective has been somewhat revised, and establishment historians now tacitly acknowledge that Norse civilization was much more complex than previously thought, and a lot less one-dimensional. 

If only Der Movement could consider the history of Rome and the rest of the Classical World, as well as that of “modern” Southern Europe, in a manner that is “much more complex” and “a lot less one-dimensional.” Alas, that would entail some original thinking and a break with fossilized dogma (blasphemy) so such revised “historical perspective” will not be forthcoming from the babbling zombies of “movement” discourse.

If you are familiar with any of my writings, you’ll know that I firmly advocate the study and superimposition of past historical experiences onto present circumstances. Julius Evola

Who was of course a non-Indo-European, non-White, subhuman mongrel (which doesn’t prevent the Type I crowd from being fascinated with Evola and his insipid ramblings)

…presents my view of the usefulness of history succinctly when he posits that exploration of the past isn’t done for the ghoulish resurrection of long-dead peoples or cultures, but rather for the perennial spirit that animates and gives life to both. 

Or to engage in the usual “movement” ethnic fetishism.

The Vikings were many things — warriors, poets, explorers, statesmen — and in the dark days to come, I can think of no better “spirit” to invoke and study than that of our intrepid and oft-misunderstood Norse brethren. Like White Nationalism, Norse culture and the ‘Viking Age’ are still a sadly misunderstood phenomena, and this makes their examination all the more relevant.

The Roman period, particularly the Later Western Roman Empire, is still “a sadly misunderstood” period (misunderstood by Nutzi nitwits); I plan to read up on that period and eventually share my insights here (which you should not read if disagreement with “movement” dogma gives you fainting fits).

Furthermore, for centuries the Vikings were feared and hated by their non-Norse contemporaries, and later despised by generations of the anti-White academic establishment. All of this has only changed within the past several decades. What does this tell us? It illustrates that like our Viking kin, we White Nationalists will too someday be vindicated retrospectively, because nature favors the victorious, and our cause is glorious.

Please don’t say “we White nationalists.” I neither consider you a White nationalist nor part of “we.”

The White/European predisposition for heterodox thinking

Oh, the irony!  Someone who parrots decades of rigidly fossilized “movement” dogma with nary an original thought anywhere to be found talks about the “White/European predisposition for heterodox thinking.”

… is rooted in our people’s unique ethno- and evolutionary history. The great prophet of decline Oswald Spengler

Who would vehemently disagree with the bulk of your writing, including the confusion of Apollonian with Faustian.

 speculated that the Nordic (Aryan/Indo-European/European) soul was forged in the “harder struggling” environs of the “Nordic steppe,” and though I am not an environmental determinist, I would hold that this is partially true.[4] In the early Indo-European world, and even later in the Norse world of the Viking Age, the love of competition, permeated by the struggle of low-intensity conflict and in conjunction with the extreme climes of Northern Europe, gave birth to an inegalitarian and hierarchical society of aristocratic-warriors and heroic individuals. 

At the same time, the HBD-Nordicists tell us that Germanic Northwest Europeans are egalitarian altruistic universalists, uniquely helpless against immigration, being descended from “high trust hunter gatherers” who evolved in “the extreme climes of Northern Europe.”  The fact that these internally inconsistent views cause no cognitive dissonance is clear evidence that we are not dealing with rational analysis, but with a form of secularized religious faith.

These individuals favored deed and action over the pettiness of mere physical existence and material comfort. The cumulative tempering effect of all of these forces gave shape to the White/European man, whose desire to transcend the biological and the material…

That coming from someone who is a biological-minded materialist, albeit one peddling pseudoscience.

…whose penchant for a grounded abstract, became a proclivity for transcendence through self-overcoming. The White race’s ability to think clearly and creatively, harnessing our inner ‘Faustian’ nature has always been our people’s greatest strength, and we would be wise to continue to harness that which has always made us strong.
As White Nationalists…

Crowley is an anti-White activist, not a White nationalist (see below).

..we’ve dedicated ourselves to representing the highest, most transcendent attributes of our race, and the utilization of our ‘Faustian’ spirit in the service of a cause greater than our individual egos should be one of our greatest ideals. Ernst Jünger proclaimed that the underlying principle of the modern world is the centrality of pain. By experiencing and embracing hardship we have much in common with our Viking and Indo-European ancestors, and as such possess the potential for yet-undreamed-of greatness. 

Such greatness not manifested by the likes of Crowley.

Adolf Hitler once said that the Aryan “is the Prometheus of mankind” and I can conjure up no better epithet to describe the collective awesomeness intrinsic to our blood.

“Collective awesomeness.”  Cue cries of Pepe!  And Hail Kek!

Crowley is just another run-of-the mill, dime-a-dozen ethnic fetishist; same old, same old. By peddling distortions and untruths to divide Whites against themselves, Crowley does the dirty work of the System, and therefore can be considered a dedicated anti-White activist, not a White nationalist.

Sadly, The Occidental Observer has degenerated into a highbrow version of Chateau Heartiste, being a mix of Trump fanboyism, HBD pseudoscience, Nordicism, and juvenile AltRightism. More evidence that Der Movement, Inc. corrupts everything it comes in contact with, including otherwise intelligent and well individuals (TOO blog founders, not necessarily all of the contributors).

*Further, looking at Novembre’s “genes mirror geography” study, we can see that Italian samples, derived from various parts of that nation, fall exactly where one would expect given the geographic cline of gene frequencies.  There is no significant shift, as one would expect if the population base of the nation had been significantly replaced by others from origins outside the European genetic cline.

Spencer and Bowden on Nietzsche

An interesting analysis.

The point Spencer made at the end is important.  Pan-European nationalism is indeed the avant-garde of nationalist thought today, while ethnonationalism, the petty nationalism of the past, is the old and tired creaky remnants of entrenched failure.

Fascist Typology

Bardeche’s Type I and Type II

Coogan’s Dreamer of the Day includes a quote from Bardeche’s Suzanne et le Tandis (Suzanne and the Slums), in the chapter: “Le Fascisme International” that seems more complete and accurate (and free from spelling and grammar errors) than the version popping up on the Alt Right.  This quote includes:

I have known, after Clarence, very many “fascists,” for the race is not dead. Some of them had boots, they were familiar with the runes, and they camped out on the night of the solstice in order to sing under the stars the beautiful solemn songs of their ancestors. The others did not have boots, they held up their skinny reformers’ heads severely, they wore glasses, they collected cards, and they made furious speeches. All were poor, they believed, they fought, they detested lying and injustice.

The precise translation is less important than the general point being made; an important distinction between different fascist archetypes, even though it is made in a bemused fashion, in jest, and even though I’m sure Bardeche didn’t mean to focus on that distinction in his  quote.  Nevertheless, regardless of intention and style, there is food for thought here.

Thus, Bardeche correct identifies two archetypes of fascists; thus:

Type I: Some of them had boots, they were familiar with the runes, and they camped out on the night of the solstice in order to sing under the stars the beautiful solemn songs of their ancestors.

Type II: The others did not have boots, they held up their skinny reformers’ heads severely, they wore glasses, they collected cards, and they made furious speeches.

To translate into a context more familiar to the racial nationalist “movement” of today: Type I would be a pure representation of a type that would tend to include: ethnonationalists, Nordicists, Traditionalists, ethnic fetishists, and Hitler worshippers; while Type II would be a pure representation of a type that would tend to include: pan-Europeanists, Futurists, and Imperium-oriented Yockeyites.

Type I, in its purest representation, would tend to be an extroverted, action-oriented mesomorph; Type II would be an introverted, intellect-oriented ectomorph (not sure where endomorphs would fit in, as so many of them tend to be leftists to begin with).

That is not to say that Type I activists are never intellectual, nor that Type II activists are devoid of action, simply that on a spectrum, Type I are relatively action > intellect and Type II are relatively intellect > action.

Bardeche classified both types as: All were poor, they believed, they fought, they detested lying and injustice.  That may be true, although I think the “they detested lying and injustice” part applies mostly to Type II.  It are the Type II activists who would tend to be more of the Moralpath type.  Type I activists would tend to be more pragmatists, being as they are more action-oriented in any case.  While both types include Vangaurdists, Mainstreamers are almost exclusively Type I.  Type II activists, with their severe affect and furious speeches (or, today, blog posts – “crazed and bitter,” eh?), are hardly the Mainstreamer type.

While most activists would tend to have some traits of both types, they would be skewed in one direction or another.  

Some more or less “pure” types exist.  Your host, Ted Sallis, is a more or less a pure Type II. Francis Parker Yockey himself was a Type II.  Most Anglosphere activists in Der Movement are definitely Type I, certainly in the USA. The Alt Right, with all its intellectual pretensions, is actually heavily represented by Type I activists, at least among the rank-and-file.  In general, Type I’s will outnumber Type IIs, the latter being a distinct minority.

Leaders are a mixed bag, and historical fascist leaders have shown mixed characteristics of both types.  Most interesting is when there is a distinct mismatch between ideology and personality; the person has the ideology of one fascist type, but the personality of another.  This is a crucially important point.  While Bardeche’s quote delves mostly into personality, it bleeds into ideology: those boot-wearing activists obsessed with runes, ancestral songs, and the solstice (as well as Viking horns and mead, eh?) would tend to gravitate toward ethnonationalist and/or Nordicist ideologies, and be enamored of “traditionalism,” while those idealists with their skinny severe reformer heads, furious speeches, glasses and other introvert tendencies (card-collecting being a metaphor for introverted intellectualism) would tend to gravitate toward pan-Europeanism, Futurism and other manifestations of avant-garde politics, and visions of Imperium.  

Personality and ideology are often linked, but when the linkage breaks down, all sorts of strange fascistic hybrids are observed.  For example, Hitler politically was Type I, but his personality was more Type II.  Certain Alt Right ethnonationalists mimic Hitler to the extent that they are ideologically Type I but have the “bookish” and Intellect-oriented Type II character.  Conversely, some pan-European Alt Righters are the opposite: politically Type II but with Type I personalities. 

On the other hand, when personality and ideology more or less perfectly coincide, then from that synergy you get the “impossible” extreme Moralpath types – a Ted Sallis or a Francis Parker Yockey.

There is no doubt more to analyze on this topic but this is a useful beginning.