Category: Stanley Payne

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. 

Three Faces of Authoritarian Nationalism

Clearing up misconceptions.
If there is one thing I hate (among many) it is the tendency of ignorant drooling retardates to conflate fascism – a revolutionary movement that aimed at remaking society and which functioned as a secular religion – with the varied para-fascist authoritarian conservative regimes whose aim was to fossilize in place established societal structures so as to serve the narrow interests of political, military, business, and/or religious elites.
Stanley Payne’s table is of value here in distinguishing varieties of authoritarian nationalism.
We see the fascists (which includes national socialism) – the revolutionary secular religion, wishing to remake society via a paligenetic “irrational” vitalistic movement of both individual (New Man) and collective transcendence; the nationalist radical right – the para-fascists who would sometimes ape superficial features of fascistic political theater but who were profoundly conservative and wanted no alteration of society whatsoever and who depended upon elite manipulation and not popular support; and finally the conservative nationalists – the more mainstream electoral right with moderate objectives of solidifying a right-of-center sociopolitical consensus, lacking the revolutionary objectives of fascism and also lacking the rigidly ultra-authoritarian, narrow elitist, and militaristic focus of the traditionalist far-right.
One has to be a real idiot – or at least a dishonest imbecile – to confuse these political manifestations.