Category: Roger Griffin

Remember the Rhizome

The importance of preserving the rhizome.

Read this and focus on the difference between the organized slime mold model of “fascist” activism, and the rhizome model of decentralized groupuscules.  Keep in mind that the EGI Notes-Western Destiny axis is an example of a groupuscule (population of one). The ultimate fascist slime mold?  National Socialist Germany, I suppose.

What’s the immediate future of groupuscles – the decentralized rhizome structure – in today’s context?  Are we transitioning to a more slime mold like structure, with the rise of the Alt Right and Trump? Are groupuscules affecting mainstream politics via the Alt Right to Alt Light (and Alt Wrong) to Civic Nationalist Trump continuum?

I argue that we need both slime mold and rhizome. Especially today, when there is a great power disparity between the System and Der Movement, it is prudent for Der Movement not to put “all its eggs on one basket” – or to have just one big egg, which can end up like Humpty Dumpty.  It is prudent to allow for a variety of memes to be generated and tested, here I call for Bowery’s “sortocracy” within Der Movement itself.  Let’s test various ideas instead of smothering them within the overarching “movement” dogma that has failed over and over again for decades.  The importance of having diverse ideologies in Der Movement is outlined in this excerpt from my essay:

The decentralized aspect of the current far right allows for the development of diverse, interesting, and extremely varied permutations of memes and ideology—manifestations that would not be possible in the context of a highly organized, top-down hierarchical structure imposing a common worldview. While most “movement” memes may be nonsense, some of this variety may prove useful; in all these permutations, some “correct answers” may be hit upon. 

This is analogous to the biological process of mutation—most mutations are harmful or neutral, but, in the midst of the plethora of genetic variation is the occasional beneficial mutation, which confers adaptive value in specific challenging environments. Likewise, the Lilliputian far-right, subjected to stress under the repressive establishment Gulliver, undergoes varieties of memetic/ideological mutations, many useless or harmful, but several which may eventually allow the rightist organisms to flourish.

In the absence of this ideological diversity, one will find fewer “memetic mutations,” leaving the “movement” vulnerable to, and unable to adapt to, changing (perhaps more hostile) environments.  That’s one (of several) problems I have with the Alt Right – that this millennial marketing ploy seems intent on subsuming most of Der Movement within it, smothering what little memetic variability exists within a “movement” typically already characterized by rigid fossilized dogmas.  We need more ideological diversity now – a lot more – not less.  If we are all going to get our “Alt Right marching orders” from Pepe-Kek, mouthing empty platitudes about “God Emperor Trump” (and his Jewish family), it’s not going to go well with us at all.

Slime mold vs. rhizome should not be viewed as “either/or.”  Certainly, there will be periods that are (or should be) rhizome-predominant (like the present) and there will be (hopefully again in the future) slime mold-predominant periods.  But even at the height of slime mold organization and power, it would be prudent to retain some degree of rhizome structures – to have some groupuscules around, preserving memetic diversity, experimenting with new ideas, new ideologies, and novel ways of living and of interpreting sociopolitical realities. Better to have these alternative ideas and approaches on hand and easily accessible, in case they are required, than to face changing situations having to suddenly come up with ideological and/or strategic-tactical alternatives in a crisis. After a slime mold collapse, such as the collapse of fascism in 1945, it would be prudent to have at least some rhizomes around to “seed” the next ideological growth cycle.  Conversely, during the rhizome-predominant period, groupuscles should always at least attempt to strive toward developing to the slime mold level.  After all, the ultimate objective of the Sallis groupuscule is to make my ideas dominant within racial nationalism and then have a New Movement actualize those ideas through a revolutionary transformation of the White World (or what’s left of it).

Groupuscules for the sake of groupuscules is a sterile cul-de-sac, but a slime mold without any rhizome side growths risks being an evolutionary dead end.  And rhizomes that prematurely blossom into aborted slime mods, as seems to be happening now, can be a disaster.  Remember there is more to racial nationalism today than Alt Right-Pep-Kek-Trump and all the rest.


From Madness to Rhizome

Escape “movement” madness.

Some reality:

FBI Director James Comey wrote his bombshell letter to Congress on Friday about newly discovered emails that were potentially “pertinent” to the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server before agents were able to review any of the material because the bureau had not yet gotten a search warrant to read them, three government officials who have been briefed on the probe told Yahoo News.
When Comey wrote the letter, “he had no idea what was in the content of the emails,”…

So, let’s compare the prudence of EGI Notes, which takes a “wait-and-see” approach to unknown/fluid situations, and the womanly hysteria of Chateau Heartiste and other precincts of Der Movement, appointing Fat Donny Amnesty as Lord God Emperor Kek of Pepeland USA simply because of Comey’s vague letter, complete with lurid fantasies of what “startling information” the FBI must have uncovered.

Now, it’s possible the FBI may discover something of importance after the fact (but I’m not optimistic about that); if so, that doesn’t excuse the quota queens acting like a bunch of undisciplined gesticulating guineas.

Once again, Trump Derangement Syndrome cuts both ways.  It’s not only the Left that has become unhinged over Trump; elements of the far-Right have as well, albeit in a positive and love-struck direction.

Just like a beta male, blinded by love, acts like a buffoon for milady, so do the “movement” and “game” crowd act completely irrationally, besotted as they are by Der Touchback.

It’s pathetic, and no doubt if Trump loses they’ll attempt to pretend it never happened.  Don’t let them get away with it.

Onanism material for Der Movement.

It’s…cognitive elitism!  Not that Breezy Steve will rethink the HBD madness he helped foist on an unsuspecting Right.

So…am I just being a “shit-stirrer” with these kind of posts?  There is a political objective here: to convince the reader that the “movement” is hopelessly inept and in its current form is not going to achieve the goals it allegedly is pursuing.  The readers therefore should become part of that voice demanding read change.  Or, becoming part of that change themselves.

Maybe you don’t think that the ideas and/or approach of EGI Notes is appropriate either.  You believe you can do better yourself.  Maybe you can!  Take the initiative, start your own blog, form your own group, organize your own groupuscle, your own part of the activist rhizome.

As long as you don’t fall into the trap of mindlessly parroting “movement” dogma and blindly following “movement” “leaders” then maybe some real good can come out of your initiatives.

Vanguard View of Counter Currents Radio, 1/31/15

Brief reply.
Johnson and Le Brun create interesting content (at least so far), and even when I disagree with their assessments, these podcasts have been useful.
Comments on this one:
Le Pen.  I do not agree with the Le Pen cheerleading, and as one of the “vanguardists” who have been critical of her (calling her a “piece of shit” can reasonably be seen as critical), I have a few words to say. Let’s take the Golden Dawn issue. Look, I don’t expect that Marine Le Pen, dressed in a SS uniform, will stride into a press conference, yell “Hail Golden Dawn,” and gave a Nazi salute.  But there seems to me to be a middle ground between that and endorsing the pro-immigrant, anti-Greek, anti-European far-Left.  What if Le Pen said the following:
“Unfortunately, there is no one in the upcoming Greek election I can endorse. I certainly can never support the Greek Left, who stand for mass migration and the destruction of Greek and European identity. But the Greek Right also does not share our values and is completely different from us in the FN.*  So, I don’t endorse or support anyone there. I am French, and not Greek, and it is not my place to tell the Greek people how to vote. However, I do hope that someday a FN-like party will arise in Greece with whom we can work.”

*Note: This has the additional benefit of actually being true.

If she had said that, I would not be thrilled, but neither would I have labelled her a “piece of shit.” The statement above would I believe be sufficient to satisfy mainstreaming needs, without having the dishonor (and the raised eyebrows on the international Right) of actually supporting Greek Marxists (while at the same time denying any solidarity with the Greek Right). If you can’t take the right side, then don’t take any side.
What happens if after all this mainstreaming, she never comes to power?  What benefit then the evisceration of a legitimate French far-Right?  Or what if she comes to power and governs from the middle?  The danger in depending on mainstreaming to get into power is that you depend on it to remain in power. If she’s afraid of offending mainstream voters, the Jews, the European intelligentsia, and all the rest, what guarantee is there that if elected she isn’t going to jettison function for expediency?  
Entryism. The whole idea that moderate racialism, like Amren, serves as an entry point for more hardcore activism is not backed up by any hard data.  This would seem to be a topic that mainstream anti-fascist scholars like Griffin should take a look at. He does the running and we slipstream behind him, and use his findings for our benefit.
WNs teaching their children.  Greg Johnson asserts that older WNs intentionally avoid passing their ideology to their children. That be true in some cases, but in other cases, people may do in fact try to pass on their ideology but fail since they cannot compete with the concentrated propaganda of the educational system, the media, pop culture, and peer pressure. It would be helpful if the “movement” could produce materials useful for the education of modern youth. Of course, such material should not include such “movement” staples as:  Aryans from Atlantis, King Tut as Dolph Lundgren, any mention at all of Savitri Devi or Julius Evola, “Meds” and Slavs as cringing subhumans, anyone as a “man above time” or “man beyond time,” obsessions about cephalic indices or admixture coefficients, Hyperborea and Madame Blavatsky, bizarre conspiracy theories – in other words, 99% of “movement” material would be inappropriate.

Anti-Zionist parties in France.  Regardless of the utility of that approach, if the Jews and their fellow travellers continue restricting speech in Europe, that approach would be off the table, Even the Le Penite mainstreamers should beware that even their moderate platforms become criminalized. Therefore, I will continue speaking out on the free speech issue, snide remarks from Counter Currents commentators notwithstanding.

Other issues. I agree with Johnson about right-wing populism and freedom of speech. Unfortunately, no one in America seems interested in the former, and no one in Europe with the latter.

Learning from Anti-Fascist Liberal Democratic Triumphalism

The smug Payne and Griffin.

Reading some of the work of Stanley Payne on fascism, I note that he is very similar to Griffin in trumpeting liberal triumphalism: “neofascists” will always be disappointed and will never obtain any political success whatsoever in Western nations because the West has been “inoculated against fascism,” and today’s fascists are a pitifully small and weak group, etc., etc.  On the one hand, it’s a good thing that these liberal ideologues (not objective scholars) have such smug overconfidence. On the other hand, though, specifically for those on our side, we need to clear up some misconceptions and, after all, an acceptance of liberal triumphalism certainly isn’t good for fascist morale.
Certainly, “fascist” and “Nazi” have become pejoratives, and as the book Suprahumanismpoints out, opposition to fascism seems to be the underlying foundation of the entire liberal democratic and multicultural system.  Certainly, in this milieu, the populations of Western nations are not open-minded about the revolutionary far-right.  This is to a large extent due to the equation of fascistic ideologies with “blood, death, imperialism, hatred, racism, genocide, Holocaust,” ad nauseam.  However, as an opponent of “mainstreaming,” I do not believe that those on our side who are truly fascists and national socialists should deny the label.  In the end, it does no good.  If even non-fascist authoritarian rightists are labeled as “fascist,” and, in some cases, even pro-multiculturalist (pseudo-)conservative Republicans are so labeled, it is obvious that real “fascist Nazis” won’t escape the label, regardless of whatever hand-waving twists and turns and “spin” they attempt to put on the subject.  Further, (unsuccessfully) denying one’s real political identity projects weakness.  However, there are those – such as exemplified by this blog – who are “fascist Nazis” but who differ VERY significantly from the European political movements of the 1920s, 30s, and 40s that were of that creed.  Some of these differences are noted in Greg Johnson’s distinguishing the Old Right from the New Right.  A new national socialist fascism that eschews disjunctive intra-European racism and militaristic imperialism, while embracing pan-European racialism and Salterian universal nationalism needs to be articulated.  At the same time, the mammoth edifice of the System’s liberal democracy needs to be critiqued.  Indeed, if our creed is allegedly so “tainted” by historical misdeeds so as to constitute an “inoculation,” what about the history of liberal democracy, and how that could be objectively perceived by the ever-so-sensitive White masses desperate to be “on the right side of history?”
Indeed, one can induce cognitive dissonance in the liberalized (American) White masses by pointing out that the liberal democracy they so cherish has been responsible for enslaving the Negro, dispossessing the Amerindian, disenfranchising the Female, and discriminating against the Homosexual.  The response would be, of course, that these unpleasant historical events were due to the “White male racist” imperfections of the system, and now liberal democracy is being “perfected.”  We would be told that the imperfect past should not taint the future. The same applies to any other political philosophy. The past imperfections of fascism/national socialism – the petty nationalism, the unscientific hyper-disjunctive biological racism, the ultra-militarism – all these will be eliminated through the same process of “perfection” that the White masses believe enables liberal democracy to get “on the right side of history.”  Granted, people are irrational and the masses well-brainwashed but that is, theoretically, an argument we could make.
A practical objection to what I have written is that our side lacks any access whatsoever to the “megaphone” required to reach the masses as to explain our point of view. This is true. However, it clearly demonstrates why Griffin and Payne are misleading (dishonest?) to their readers. For, the reason – the ONLY reason – why the West is “inoculated against fascism” is that the ruling elites are anti-fascist, and utilize the resources of the mass media and the educational system to propagandize against fascism and in favor of multicultural liberal democracy.  And all this obtains because old-style fascism, with its petty nationalism and militarism, provoked a war it could not win and thus handed world rule over to elites of the Left.  But, there is no deep, mystical aversion of Western populations to fascism. It is simply mass propaganda inculcated from elites representing the winning side of a military conflict. One can envision a theoretical scenario in which, in some fashion, the ruling elites embrace fascism and start pro-fascist propaganda to the masses. Suddenly, one could say that the West is “inoculated against liberal democracy.”  Of course, I see no path at this time to such a scenario; however, my point is that the Griffin/Payne school look foolish when they imply that Western populations have somehow become inherently hostile to fascist memes, independent of a continuous, overt, and relentless stream of rather crude and ill-disguised propaganda. It is quite clear that Griffin and Payne are no more disinterested scholars of fascism than I am – they are subjective, politically motivated anti-fascists that are part of the anti-fascist ruling elite responsible for the “inoculation” they gleefully crow about.  The difference is that I am open and honest in my support of fascist ideals and don’t pretend to exemplify objective scholarship (although to give Griffin some credit, he’s made it clear that his work has an anti-fascist agenda, a curious admission for one so adamant that “neofascism” is hopeless – why work to oppose something that has “zero chance of success?”). 

The Old Movement is a major impediment to developing the new manifestations of fascist national socialism appropriate for the 21st century. We need to first articulate, and then actualize, a fresh permutation of our basic ideals. 

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.