Category: Mussolini

More Fisking, 1/17/16

::Yawn::

…one person who is clearly a disgruntled past contributor.

That’s right. I’m clearly no damn good.  How about removing my EGI PDF from your anti-White Yellow Supremacist website?  How many goddamn times do I have to ask, Madame Butterfly?

While Sallis apparently bemoans the Soviet sufferings in the example of the Sino-Soviet border conflict of 1969, the normal answer/position for anyone who cares about Europeans and European EGI: with regard to which side to take in the Sino-Soviet conflict is of course the Chinese side.

Daniel S: race-traitor.

This is like a case of chess vs. checkers. If you are playing checkers (which apparently Sallis is doing) then you’ll scream, “Russians are white and therefore they should be blindly supported no matter what they do, because their skin is very white!”

No worries, I won’t always support the White.  After all, in a theoretical death-match (think Highlander, with the swords) between Yukio Mishima and Daniel S, my full support would go to Mishima.  By the way, anyone familiar with my work knows full well I do not conflate race to skin color.  Why don’t you read the EGI PDF before you delete it?

Or, you could play chess and realise that the Sino-Soviet split was one of the most exploitable things that ever happened for people who were struggling against the Soviet Union.

Or you can play “chess” and realize that the Yellow Peril is the ultimate long-term threat to the White race, and that a short-term “checkers” advantage derived from supporting chanting yellow insects does not justify that ultimate strategic threat down the road.

ALSO: Given the rhetoric that he is throwing around, I wouldn’t be surprised if Sallis will next declare that Adolf Hitler and the entire general staff of the German Army in NS Germany, as well as Benito Mussolini and the whole PNF, were somehow magically ‘race traitors’ to the European peoples because they chose to work with or enable the following militant groups of people against certain European groups: Japan, Korea (yes, large sections of Korean society fought in the IJA and collaborated with Axis), the Burmese National Army, the Indian National Army, Indonesian National Army, Young Malays Union, Thailand, the Philippines, Formosa (non-KMT Han in Taiwan and Taiwanese aboriginals), Mongolia, Crimean Tatars, Hmong tribes, Khmer Issarak (Cambodian and Khmer), Cambodia, Laos, Cochinchina (later part of Vietnam), Annam (later part of Vietnam), Tonkin (later part of Vietnam), Manchuria, Tibet, Assam, Bengal. I can’t wait to see the rationalising or perhaps the spinning that will happen next.

Don’t seem to remember either individual (Adolf or Benito) proposing Chinese colonization of White lands so that White faglets can be protected by buck-toothed, flat-chested Chinese girls with guns. And I note that Hitler quashed von Ribbentrop’s triumphalist announcement of the Fall of Singapore (which Hitler regretted) because of concerns over the Yellow Peril (see Irving’s Hitler’s War).  The alliance with Japan was due to the UK’s refusal to see reason, and the idea that Japan could be a counter-balance to the USSR.  Of course, the crafty nips stabbed Adolf in the back by signing a non-aggression treaty with the USSR, but – again, of course – expected German support after Pearl Harbor (which they got, proving again that Euro-Asian alliances are for the benefit of Asians only).
Further, both sides in both world wars made use of colored auxiliaries; both sides were at fault, and both are worthy of condemnation, your mendacious Asiatic.
By the way, one can make all sorts of excuses for arrogant Japanese behavior, re: 1914 and English overseas colonies.  I can’t wait for the “spin and rationalizations” for the protests of Asian nations, including Japan, for America’s Asian exclusion acts.  Oh, you see, White lands are obligated to take leprous, tubercular, Asian immigrants (but of course never the reverse).

Asking ‘who would you support’ and presenting the dichotomy of supporting the USSR on one hand or the PRC on the other. The answer to that question is already known, Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford supplied that answer. In the circumstances that had come to exist at the time, that was the best possible choice that could have been made. 


Perhaps, gook, we’ll know what the “right choice” was when the final information is at hand.  Me, I think Nixon should have agreed to let the USSR nuke China.  If the White world ends up buried under a Yellow mudslide (with Danny masturbating and flagellating himself simultaneously), then I would think Nixon and Ford were in error.

Your blog should change its name, unless the “majority” in Majority Rights represents the populations of East Asia.  As a vehicle for specifically European interests, the site is a treasonous, pathetic joke.
Advertisements

On the Nature of Fascism

Palingenetic Ultra-Nationalism.
Some words on fascism.  There have been many stupidities spewed forth about fascism – that is, fascism as a political movement and not “fascism” as a pejorative – with bizarre definitions, confusion between genuine fascism and reactionary para-fascism, etc.
Now, true enough that political definitions are subjective, not objective.  One cannot define a political movement with the same definitiveness as one can define some natural phenomenon. Nevertheless, some definitions have more explanatory power than others, and it are these more powerful explanations, which do a better job illuminating reality, that deserve to become paradigmatic memes.
I reject definitions of fascism that are mere lists of alleged characteristics, lists that confuse surface manifestations with underlying core belief.  I reject definitions that do not understand the revolutionary dynamism of fascism, and I also reject those definitions that are based on obvious bias (Marxist definitions are particularly odious, non-explanatory, and self-serving). Definitions that reject obvious manifestations of fascism (such as national socialism) while including obvious non-contenders (such as Franco’s Spain) are also rejected.
Instead, I follow Roger Griffin’s simple yet incisive characterization of fascism as palingenetic ultra-nationalism.
The palingenetic component captures the revolutionary essence of fascism, it defines the spiritual core of the doctrine, and it clearly distinguishes fascism from para-fascism.  Thus, Franco’s Spain – a reactionary authoritarian regime focused on maintaining a traditional status quo – was in no way, shape, or form fascist. Franco had no overarching, palingenetic vision for Spain, he did not promote any rebirth of Spanish society, did not strive to create the New Spanish Man, did not promote any new strain of ideological current for Spain, Europe, or the West.  Instead, he was a military dictator, anti-communist, with an agenda of promoting the interests of the military, church, business, etc. The same applies to all the other “strongman” (usually military) dictatorships labeled “fascist” by the Left and by nitiwits on the moderate Right.  Without an underlying aim of national rebirth, of overturning the old order, of a futurist rather than rigidly traditionalist worldview, whatever a political movement is, it is not fascist.
The nation being defined in particularist terms as a specific people, a specific ethny, a specific culture, then the ultra-nationalism component excludes from consideration any regime, scheme, or movement that is universalist in scope, regardless of whether or not it has palingenetic aspects. Therefore, various messianic visions of the Globalist Left are not fascist – not American multiculturalist globalism, not the various permutations of Marxism (including the New Soviet Man), or schemes (including those that are Marxist) that divide based on class – class is not a nation; the proletariat is international and hence universalist and non-particularlist.  A purely religious focus cannot be fascist if the religion is, like Christianity, universalist, although it is possible to fuse ethny with religion in genuine fascism as was the case in Romania.
Having excluded false “fascisms” we now must admit that fascism is a rather protean beast, a sociopolitical philosophy that can be actualized in many manifestations.  The palingenesis can differ, and, as history shows us, the specific defintion of nation can differ, as long as the nation has a particularlist, non-universalist focus that has some sort of ethny-basis and can be defined in an “us vs. them” manner.
Thus, Italian Fascism was People-State; German National Socialism was People-Race; Romainian Legionaryism was People-Faith.  These are all different definitions of nation, but are all opposed to universalism, and also are all palingenetic in one form or another. The more radical forms of (national socialist) White Nationalism are also obviously fascist, as the Race component in People-Race is a bit expanded compared to the Hitlerian version, but still sharply particularlist, distinguishing the “White Nation” from the various non-White peoples of the Earth.
This definition of fascism has greater explanatory power than other versions, and provides a useful model for moving forward.

The Hitler Question and the Cult of Saint Adolf

The Hitler question answered.
These days the only websites/blogs I check regularly are The Occidental Observer (KMacD and others there always have something interesting to say), and VDARE (solely to find Steve Sailer posts to mock over at my anti-HBD blog).  However, given the crisis in Ukraine, I decided to checkout Counter Currents.  I did see (and previously commented on) Greg Johnson’s criticism of Putin, of which I approve.  But I also saw the following, which deserves commentary on the Hitler Question.
Dan:
…Your comment on Germany’s intentions in World War II for the Ukraine should make every pan-European reconsider any undue love for the Third Reich. I recall seeing a picture of a sign held by National Socialists at rally, reading “Der Russe muss sterben, damit wir leben.” “The Russian must die, that we might live.” This flies in the face of pan-Europeanism and white unity, and makes me wish fellow white nationalists would look to better models than such a divisive role model like Adolf Hitler.
Greg Johnson:
Hitler was right on almost everything, and if Ukrainians of all people can see past his errors and give him serious thought, what’s your excuse? What’s anybody’s excuse?
Dan:
My excuse is that I value the nations of Europe, and don’t support subtracting from them due to petty nationalisms. You’ve observed yourself, within the comments of this very article, that some of us hate Jews more than they love their race. The same situation can happen within the Ukraine. The most anti-Jewish leader in modern history is inspiring them to forget that the same man would have erased the Ukrainian nation from the Earth. What did the Ukraine do to deserve this from Germany?…
…I am not saying we cannot give Hitler “serious thought,” but given his wishes to do away with whole European nations, Hitler does not deserve the reputation he holds among some white nationalists. Part of that serious thought is recognizing vital flaws in his designs for a post-war Europe.
In this exchange (excerpts of the original reproduced above), I side 100% with Dan. The American “movement” is fossilized by rigid dogmas: certain European ethnies/subraces are “good” and “pure” and “white,” while others are cringing admixed swart subhumans; all great civilizations and accomplishments came from those “good” groups, etc. – and of course, the slavish worship of Saint Adolf is one of the most rigid dogmas of all.
Before the Hitler admirers have apoplexy over my blasphemy, let me say a few things in favor of the “man against time” (or whatever it was that crazed old hag said about Uncle Adolf).  If forced to decide on a “good guy” vs. “bad guy” Manichean label for Hitler, I would choose “good guy.”  The basic principles of national socialism are excellent (I myself am a national socialist, but not a Hitlerian) and Hitler’s domestic policies were sound.  Of course, there are problems: much of Mein Kampf reads like the unbalanced ramblings straight from Ostara magazine (or from typical modern “movement” texts), and the “Fuhrer principle” put too much despotic power in the hands of one man (in On Genetic Interests, Salter rightfully critiques the defective political institutions of historically fascist regimes).  But, that said, with respect to Germany itself, Hitler does deserve the high reputation he enjoys in the “movement.”
The basic problem occurs when we extend our analysis to the broader continental and global racial and civilizational spheres. While there was a dim undercurrent of a broader “White nationalism” in Hitler’s thought, he was, at essence, a German Imperialist, and a pan-Germanic Nordicist.  For people who like that sort of thing (e.g., most of the American “movement”) that’s all well and good.  But for pan-European activists such as myself (and, apparently, this “Dan” fellow as well), Hitler’s narrower racial focus was and remains a serious problem.  It’s not a peripheral issue, but it is central to Hitler’s views on race, and central to his actions in the sphere of foreign policy.
Hitler’s foreign policy was as bad as his domestic policy was good.  Yes, I know, the apologists will say, “but he had no choice.”  That is not true.  Reading Hitler’s War, by David Irving (who cannot be viewed as harboring any anti-Hitler bias), one can easily see that Adolf had several opportunities to change course – WWII was not inevitable had he given up his fixation on territorial expansion within Europe and had, for example, agreed to the British offer of overseas colonies and integration into the Western European colonial arrangement. 
Then there is the “Icebreaker” argument: that Hitler’s invasion of the USSR forestalled Stalin’s offensive against Europe, and saved all of Europe from being submerged into the Bolshevik morass. To the extent this is true, it was serendipity: after all, Hitler had been planning a German colonization of the East from the start of his political career, two decades before Stalin began massing troops on the USSR’s western frontiers.  Hitler’s idea to dispossess the Slavs and turn them into a helot race was a fundamental part of his grand racial-geopolitical vision – it wasn’t merely a reaction to Soviet troop buildups or derived from an altruistic desire to “save Europe.”  One can point out as well that by dividing Poland with Stalin, Hitler brought the USSR closer to Western Europe, and, of course, starting WWII over the Polish Corridor wasn’t exactly part of any “grand plan” to forestall a Soviet invasion.
More fundamentally: were there any other ways to deal with the Soviet threat to Europe?  Everyone knows that Yockey dedicated his book Imperium to Hitler, the “Hero” of the Second World War. I disagree with Yockey – there were no heroes in that war, only greater or lesser villains.  But Yockey had something else to say in Imperium about another leader of that era, one considered by most in the “movement” to have been nothing more than a blustering buffoon:
The end of capitalism and nationalism was symbolized by the creation and the genius of Benito Mussolini, who proclaimed in the teeth of the apparent world-victory of 19th century ideas, the organization-will and Inner Imperative of the 20th century, the Resurgence of Authority, and Ethical Socialism. Precisely when the materialistic ideologists were playing logical exercises with international politics, and creating a stupid and useless “league of nations,” this herald of the Future defied the still born nonsense of Geneva, and re-embodied the will-to-power and heroism of Western man. Over the paeans of democracy,” Mussolini spoke of the corpse of democracy.
The Duce was aware that the lazy, hedonistic “Med” Italians were too inept and degenerate to impose their will on Europe by force, unlike the more dynamic and disciplined “Alpine-Nord” Germans. Thus, Benito chose a more political route, which most likely was the correct approach.  He maintained diplomatic relations on good terms with the Western democracies – until the Ethiopia war – while beginning the process of trying (unsuccessfully) to build a Fascist International (e.g., the Montreux conferences).
Those conferences had their problems, but those problems could have been dealt with if Hitler had been willing to “play ball,” had Mussolini not been annoyed over Austria and if he didn’t have the need to fear Hitler and German expansionism (which he did, one reason for his eventual alliance with Hitler), and had all involved understood the need for a more generalized definition for “fascism” (a topic for another day). The potential was there, it just needed proper leadership and it needed a spirit of cooperation instead of the usual rightist fractiousness.  It needed, in the last analysis, someone willing and able to fuse the racial and socioeconomic aspects of fascism.  Hitler alone could not do it, and Mussolini alone failed.  Together, they may have succeeded.
An alliance between Fuhrer and Duce to build a Fascist Alliance in Europe, supporting groups like the Romanian Legionary Movement (with strong backing from Germany and Italy, Codreanu could have come to power, rather than be murdered by state authority), could have built a strong anti-communist alliance throughout Central and Eastern Europe – a blockade to Soviet expansionism. Perhaps, not fearing European German expansionism, Great Britain and France could have joined some sort of anti-communist alliance.  If not, the situation may have evolved into a three-way Cold War of Fascism vs. Marxism vs. Liberal Democracy.  Or, perhaps, other options, for better or worse, could have been on the table.  But, instead, the absolute worst outcome happened: another world war that, after the damage done 1914-1918 in the first Great War, completely wrecked the White World.
It wasn’t like any of this couldn’t have been foreseen: in The Rising Tide of Color, Stoddard warned of the consequences of yet another round of fratricidal intra-European conflict.  But Saint Adolf was intent on his hegemonic eastern expansion. Hitler cared for Germany and not for Europe; he cared for Germanics and not for Europeans.  And because of that, ALL Europeans, including the Germanics, are suffering for it.  For that, above all else, Hitler deserves to be critiqued and condemned.
That the “movement” cannot readjust its views on Hitler to incorporate the bad along with the good means that: (1) they can’t get over their fanboy man-crush on Hitler – the Cult of Saint Adolf, (2) they have incredibly bad judgment, and/or (3) they essentially agree with Hitler’s views on race and agree that the cost/benefit ratio of German expansionism and colonization at the expense of other Europeans was worth it.
Regardless, that’s not my view, and another reason I believe that the American “movement” has got to go.
It’s time for an objective racial-historical-political reevaluation of “the meaning of Hitler” – a man who was neither a demigod nor a monster, but an interesting, dynamic, world-historical leader who had profound effects on the course of White history, and the future that we face.
The Old Movement, decrepit and fossilized, adhering to rigid dogma with religious fervor, is incapable of such an assessment, as much as they are incapable of anything else.  A New Movement, one would hope, would be different and better.

The Old Movement, and its Cult of Saint Adolf, needs to die, so the White Race can live.