Category: mainstreaming

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.

Advertisements

Citizenism and Mainstreaming Failure

More fails.

Trump so far has illustrated the underlying flaws of Sailler’s “citizens” (warmed over civic nationalism).  While Trump proved that, under the right set of circumstances, there was a narrow electable window for citizenism to come into power, he is also proving how utterly useless citizenism is – and will be – once elected.  Citizenism is “weak sauce” – half measures, compromises, furtive implicitness, which at its best would only slow the decline and delay the inevitable day of reckoning.  However, the Left – nay, the entire Establishment – views citizenism as equivalent to neo-Nazi White supremacy, and thus they oppose and sabotage even the most modest citizenist initiatives of Trump. Thus, while citizenism has proved electorally successful – at least this one time, with a very unconventional candidate – it is inherently doomed to fail, caught as it is between two pincers.  On the one hand, it really cannot solve the Race-Culture problem, because that’s not what it meant to do; on the other hand, it triggers the whole Establishment the same as if it really could effectively deal with Race and Culture.  It’s the worst of both worlds – not radical enough to actually achieve the required outcomes, but just radical enough to trigger a vociferous opposition that prevents even the most modest outcomes from being achieved.

Meanwhile, the “label Antifa as a terrorist organization” has passed the required number of signatures to be considered by the White House.  The ball is in your court, Mr. Trump – as is the question why you have to be forced to consider it (assuming he actually does, and doesn’t blow it off) rather than just doing the right thing to begin with.

I can’t think of a more wonderful test of Trump’s “God Emperorness” than this.  At what point will the sweaty homoerotic fanboys give up on their hero? This is something he should have done after the Inauguration riots.

They never learn.  Electoral failure, inability to appease opponents, unlimited ability to disgust the base. Mainstreaming is a perfect example of what happens when adherents to a plausible hypothesis refuse to give up that hypothesis even when faced with overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

That applies to almost everything about the “movement,” by the way.

Der Movement Parallax

Analyzing some important points.

Read this.

For 15 long years, beleaguered Rhodesia maintained near total tactical military supremacy in the region despite severe weapon, materiel, and manpower shortages. Yet, military victory bereft of a strategic vision and clearly delineated political objectives is ultimately self-defeating. The political objectives of Rhodesia changed throughout the course of the war. Initially Rhodesia sought to maintain White minority rule, later hoped to create an African puppet regime, and finally sought nothing more than a seat at the proverbial “multicultural table.” This last political objective sealed the fate of tiny Rhodesia, and led to the pogrom of White genocide presently occurring in southern Africa. The nation of Rhodesia faced a series of overwhelming odds since its inception as a sovereign nation, but its greatest threat was its internal lack of strategic aim. This is a mistake we cannot afford to make.

This is very true.  A fundamental error that is often made is confusing strategy with tactics, and vice versa.  Means and ends are not the same; objectives and the tools to achieve those objectives are not the same.  One problem with mainstreaming is precisely this; the idea is to “mainstream” in order to “achieve (and maintain) power” so the power can be used to “preserve race and culture.”  Very laudable. Let’s put aside the empirically determined fact that mainstreaming simply doesn’t work.  Let us assume it does work.  What happens when selfish human nature takes over and the attainment and maintenance of political power ends up being the ultimate objective, the end, rather than as means to achieve racial-cultural objectives?  You may object: the same power-fetish may occur even with a vanguardist strategy.  That’s true, but less likely. The farther one’s “everyday” activity is separated from their ultimate objective, then the easier it is to lose sight of that objective. Mainstreaming is, in theory, a way to actualize vanguardism; vanguardism in turn is (in theory if you will) a way to achieve racial-cultural goals.  Being one major step removed from the alleged “real objective” makes mainstreaming more susceptible for activists to give up on their supposed goals and pursue political power for its own sake.  Vanguardists, on the other hand, live in “racial extremism” on an everyday basis and are less likely to lose sight of the objective that is “in their face” on a constant basis. Vanguardists are thus more likely, in my opinion, to understand, and remain focused on, the strategic aim.

As Greg Johnson articulated in New Right versus Old Right, white racial survival is the ultimate goal of White Nationalism, but I would go one step further and say we must explore not only how to survive, but also how to thrive racially as one people.

Fair enough.  Preservation is the first step.  Overcoming and progress comes next.

The policy failures and lack of strategic vision of former Rhodesia mirror those of the contemporary White Nationalist movement. The survival of the White race is imperative, but whites will only succeed if they maintain unity; in what form this “unity” manifests itself, and how centralized or decentralized it is, is open to debate. In order to reach our peoples greatest potential, we must seek unity of both race and thought, and harmonize these into a new European/White ecumene. 

There may be truth in this.  But it is a futile exercise to attempt to get everyone in the “movement” on board with a common vision.  It’s not going to happen.  Out of the morass – or perhaps from a fresh direction – a dominant memetic structure will emerge. Whether that will be the right direction, or a disaster, remains to be determined.

In Ricardo Duchesne’s penultimate work, The Uniqueness of Western Civilization, Duchesne rightly speculates that a penchant for rational abstraction is the hallmark for White racial success. From this ancestral proclivity new and old ideas must be forged, crafted in a manner conducive to White unity. We’ve all borne witness to the perils of abstraction run amok, such as diversity for the sake of diversity and so-called “human rights”, but abstraction, when grounded in blood and soil and beholden to a people rather than to a proposition like universal equality, can produce a clarity of vision commensurate with the greatness of our race. I’m not opting for ideological orthodoxy or an outright purge, but I am suggesting that we as a movement begin a dialogue towards what we can and cannot accept.

Again, I’m doubtful that the feuding activists of Der Movement – all Chiefs and no Indians – will come to such a consensus.

Rhodesia wasn’t able to formulate a clear sense of strategic national purpose, because they couldn’t decide what they could and could not accept. Pragmatism is the basis of power politics, but it must be grounded by an immoveable set of axiomatic principles. 

That’s correct, and why mainstreaming is bad even if it would be politically successful – because there pragmatism itself becomes the “immovable axiomatic principle.”

Our lack of a cohesive vision is tantamount to a proverbial arming of the natives, and the natives are getting restless.

True, but, again, one cannot force a collective vision on a collection of individuals and mini-groups who cannot even decide on the parameters of “Us” vs. “Them.”  The Us/Them division is the fundamental characteristic of what a group is; if even that cannot be agreed upon, then there is no group.

Old hostilities and petty ethnic rivalries exacerbated an already precarious military and political situation. Intra-racial division, aside from contributing to Rhodesian political incongruity, proved deleterious to the war effort by limiting the mobilization of the population…

Let’s have more dem dere narrow ethnonationalism, as well as more divisive Guntherite racial theories!  That’ll bring folks together in unity, no doubt! 

We contemporary White Nationalists find ourselves in similar circumstances. The rampant division within our movement, though generally not based upon intraracial ethnic distinctions…

“…not based upon intraracial ethnic distinctions…”  Uh, I think the author of this piece just missed the last century of failed racial nationalism.  “Intraracial ethnic distinctions” constitute the first major division of “movement” disagreement.  If one wanted to do a memetic “PCA plot” of Der Movement, then the subracial/ethnic question would be the first major axis of variation.

Like our former Rhodesian brothers, our numbers, though growing, are few and the upcoming struggles will require mobilization of our entire movement for the survival of our race.

Not going to work. You need to find the optimal segment of Der Movement – or better yet start a New Movement beginning with first principles – and build your unity out of that.

European civilization has always been conflicted, agonal in nature, and historically our propensity for low-level kinship violence has been evolutionarily beneficial. 

Perhaps in the past, not the present.  The definition of what is “evolutionarily beneficial” (i.e., adaptive) depends on the environmental context.

However, in the midst of possible racial extinction, it’s of the utmost importance that internecine movement division stop. But how can division stop, particularly if we begin to explore new strategic paradigms, as dialogue breeds division?

Good question.

Put simply, we can stop division through dialectical synthesis. The musical virtuoso J.S. Bach wasn’t simply a master composer and performer; he was first and foremost a “synthesist” and thus able to harmoniously weld together an eclectic assortment of European musical styles into a cohesive melody. More to the point, like the works of Bach, we in the White Nationalist movement must shed the detritus of the past and form a new metapolitical imperative based upon a thoughtful, long-term strategy and movement unity. Strength in numbers is a very real thing, and as was the case for our Rhodesian ancestors it will be a deciding factor in our movement’s life or death.

That’s not an answer.  It’s hand-waving.  How to, in real-world terms, practically speaking, create the unity the author refers to?  Actually and precisely, how?

Native Africa never truly overcame the so-called “k-factor,” though it did receive outside help from a variety of forces, from international finance to Communist China…

A side note: Asians are always going to be on the forces of anti-Whitism and anti-Westernism.  Yockey understood that.  Can today’s yellow fever fetishists understand that as well?

My criticisms aside, I liked this article and believe the author is on the right track, sort of. But I myself went through this stage, long ago, of thinking that the entire “movement” could unite around some fundamental principles, have unity, and move forward.  Not possible.  As I said, the “movement” cannot even agree on the most basic distinction of all – Us/Them – how is anything else possible?  The author it seems wants to make “preservation and advancement of the White race” as the “immoveable axiomatic principle” – good luck with that since Der Movement cannot agree on what the “White race” is and who does or does not belong to it.  

So, while the author’s heart is in the right place I have to tell his head: it’s not that simple. It’s not like others haven’t come to similar conclusions before.  It just doesn’t work that way in reality.  The solution for him, personally, is either find a segment of the “movement” that fits his perspectives and try and build that segment into the dominant activist vehicle, or, if no such suitable segment exists, then help build a new one from the ground up.

Sallis is Right Again: Farstreaming

Orban moving right.

Read this.

Recall this?

Well, my comment that Jobbik is to Orban’s right no longer holds, because Orban has continued farstreaming to his right, while Jobbik has been mainstreaming to the center.  The two ships have passed each other on the sea of political rhetoric.

Outcome:

Orban farstreaming to the right = sailing to political success.

Jobbik mainstreaming to the center = sinking and hemorrhaging supporters.

Mainstreaming may be good in theory but has no empirical support in practice. Mainstreaming fails.  Pushing the radical envelope succeeds.  Sallis is correct…again.

6/14/17: Another “Movement” Fail

Another “movement” fail.

The successful populist, and that increasingly will be the only successful politician, will have to start here: simple “moderate” message of good-will hammered hard and mechanically repeated (the populist finds tests effective sound bites and repeats them in the form of mantras to mesmerize and inspire: Trump’s “make America great again”…Idealistic appeals will fall on deaf ears unless those ideals are linked to self-interest and hope. Donald Trump instinctively grasped this and acted upon it, using the vocabulary and statements at the level of an eight-year old to propel his campaign. The populist casts scorn on the expert. Without modern media, Trump’s campaign would have been ignored and allowed to wither by being deprived of the oxygen of publicity, but modern media provide new ventilation systems for the oxygen of populist rebellion.

Sigh.  Yeah, Trump sure got elected; he “succeeded;” fat lot of good it’s doing all of us now. Wait, this essay says, use Trump’s methods.  Yes, but the methods are linked to the outcome – superficiality, jackassery, a complete lack of any ideological foundation is lined to major cucking in power.  Alliances, alliances!  And when the “alliances” are successful, it’s a pyrrhic victory – look at the UK under Brexit, groaning under mass non-White immigration and beset by constant NEC terrorist attacks.

And apparently Le Pen lost because she didn’t mainstream enough!  

The defeat of Marine Le Pen, ironically, had much to do with her attachment to and association with old and discredited political structures. She also refused to make an alliance or compromise…

Amazing!  Leave it up to Der Movement to learn nothing from its constant debacles.  Let’s all go on Twitter, rant about “crime” (why not import lots of “high IQ law abiding Asians” then?) and make alliances that will prevent any meaningful change in the event of an electoral victory.

Yegads…Der Movement’s stupidity is terminal.

Those who believe in a return to some form of ethnic separatism need to abandon, at least for the time being, uncompromising and isolating positions and become more fluid and fluent, more outgoing, more social, and less ideological, more passionate but less embittered; in a word, more popular…

More compromises, more mainstreaming, more implicitness…in other words, doubling down on decades of failure, betrayal, and defeat.

Of course, we need to use whatever sociopolitical and technological “technics” for victory, but not at the expense of the core message.  Means are not ends; means are to achieve ends. Once we focus on means at the expense of ends, the meaning of any “victory” is lost. We’ve seen, time and time again, that mainstreaming usually fails, and any “victories” based on lowbrow appeals to strictly proximate interests end up achieving nothing. This is the same “implicit Whiteness” argument wrapped in a slightly different package – implicit Whiteness and Republican “dog whistling” led to decades of GOP fraud.  Don’t we ever learn?

The other negative aspect of the new media is the encouragement to retreat from social life. Much time spent with a computer would be better spent by many in a real social environment.

I agree.  Of course, that statement was made on an online post, and I’m answering it in one. So, we’re both hypocrites.  On the other hand, if you want people to get involved more in analog activism, rather than digital navel-gazing, the “movement” needs to be cleaned up. Read some “movement” comments threads online and then imagine meeting some of those folks offline.  Would you really want to?

In Praise of Extremists

A critique of mainstreaming from Counter-Currents.

This seems to me a reasonably forceful criticism of mainstreaming, and I of course agree wholeheartedly:

Vanguardism must be repeatedly emphasized, because the instinct of every politician seems to do the exact opposite. Politicians are inveterate panderers and flatterers of the public mind, which unfortunately has been completely molded by our enemies for generations. Politicians follow the people. Vanguardists seek to lead them. Politicians take public opinion as a given. Vanguardists seek to change it. Politicians always seek to soften their message to appeal to the public. Vanguardists realize this is folly. If one attracts lukewarm followers who are in only partial agreement, then under normal circumstances, you will be fighting with them as much as with your opponents — and when things get tough, they will sheer off and leave you alone anyway.

That’s what I’ve been preaching for years – mainstreaming, at its best, will leave you with support a mile wide and an inch deep.  I’d rather have the opposite: support only an inch wide, but a mile deep, and then take the time to expand that mile deep support ever wider. Greg seems to agree; thus:

Thus Vanguardists realize that there is no real substitute for the slow, painstaking, and difficult work of converting a significant minority of our people to our way of thinking. We have to uphold a radical and absolute vision and then bring as many of our people around as possible.

Yes, indeed.  Less Le Pen and more Golden Dawn. Less Trump and more Salter. Less Alt Right/Alt Lite/Alt Wrong and more EGI Notes.  Let’s talk about the ideas of Yockey rather than obsess over cartoon frogs or civic nationalist political candidates.  How about more emphasis on Codreanu and the Legionary movement and less emphasis on how to boost Marine Le Pen’s vote totals?

And then we have this:

 
We should follow the old Roman maxim, “Suaviter in modo, fortiter in re”: suave, supple, and infinitely pragmatic and persuasive in style — yet firm and steadfast, indeed adamantine and dogmatic about essential principles.

Which is exactly what I’ve been saying for a long time. Modifying rhetoric and tone?  Certainly. After all, the hard tone of this blog is not meant for the general public.  But modifying core principles?  Absolutely not. And even if we wanted to do so, it doesn’t work.  Mainstreaming fails, time and time again.

…extremists are important. Cultural and political innovations take place on the extremes, at the margins, and then are diffused to — or imposed upon — the mainstream. Thus we should treasure extremists. We should cultivate them. We should encourage their creativity. 

I certainly agree.  I would like to see this attitude actualized.

Then we should steal their best memes and spread them far and wide.

If only people in the “movement” would steal my best memes and spread them far and wide. Please do.

And foremost among those memes is that the “movement” is a complete failure, needs to be deconstructed, and reconstructed starting with first principles.

Who Has Been Right?

Who’s been mostly right?

Let’s get one thing out of the way: Der Movement was right about Trump’s chances of winning and I was wrong.  Now that we got that one aberrant item out of the way, let’s get to the “meat” of the issue.

Der Movement invested an enormous amount of intellectual and moral capital in Donald Trump the man, labeled “the last chance of White America” aka the “God Emperor” who is going to save us from demographic displacement. Someone else – who might that be? – clearly asserted that Trump is a vulgar, ignorant buffoon, a pro-Jewish and pro-Negro cuck, who is not worthy of the breathless onanistic support of racial activists.  Unlike Der Movement and its slavish hero worship and Man on White Horse Syndrome obsessions, I made a clear distinction between Trump the man – a disaster – and Trump the campaign, Trump the movement, Trump the right-wing populist.  I made clear that the only real reason to support Touchback Trump was the perception – not reality, but perception – that Trump is a “racist fascist” thus inducing racial chaos and balkanization in America.

The outcome?  Trump has been constantly cucking, betraying his base, but, because of leftist hysteria and perceptions, political violence and chaos has skyrocketed.  Sallis right, Der Movement wrong.

I also made the point that Trump’s supporters were more important than Trump himself – and, yes, we see Trump’s supporters battling leftist thugs in the streets while Trump himself wimps out on a constant basis.  Sallis correct once again.

I have been warning about Silk Road White nationalism and the trend of Asians pimping out their women to pathetic beta activists in order to further Asian racial agendas.  Lo and behold we have Chinese “maidens” and Japanese “shady ladies” infiltrating and subverting White nationalist blogs. Surprise!

[We can ask how these “shady ladies” find the time to not only run their own Asian supremacist blog, but also leave long and rambling posts in the AltRightosphere.  Do they have a (White) sugar daddy supporting them? Spoiled rich kid living off daddy’s money? Or, perhaps, just like the Russian government is said to pay Internet trolls, China does the same?]

I warned against the Alt Lite/Alt Wrong, and was very sharp toward the Alt Right because of the Alt Right’s “big tent” embrace of the aforementioned elements. Then we saw the Alt Lite/Alt Wrong throw Spencer under the bus, re: Hailgate and chuckle with the Jewish friends, giving consolation to Jews that “Spencer is likely to get shot.”  Absolutely disgusting – Brimelow and Derbyshire leading the list of speakers.  Do you need any more indication on why the Alt Wrong is wrong?

Back online in the very early 2000s, I was critical of the clownshow of the National Alliance even before Pierce died, and we see the utter collapse of the organization since then.

I was sharply critical of Marine Le Pen and mainstreaming and we saw Le Pen go down to a catastrophic loss, and mainstreaming also lost in The Netherlands, Austria, and Australia. Der Movement, on the other hand, exhibited delusions about Le Pen and are still pontificating about “how well” Le Pen actually did, even after her shocking “blow out loss.” Sallis right, Der Movement wrong.

This is a question of judgement.  Who, dear reader, do you trust? Should you trust? Will you trust?