Can Fascism be Critiqued from the Right?

Henry Wolff, American Renaissance, March 29, 2013

Julius Evola on the defects of Fascism.

Julius Evola, Fascism Viewed from the Right, Arktos Media, 2013, 130 pp., $19.50 (soft cover)

Julius Evola (1898-1974) was an Italian thinker who wrote about the world of Tradition, that is to say, the world of pre-Modern civilizations. He believed Enlightenment rationalism had repudiated much of what was genuinely valuable in Tradition: religion, monarchy, aristocracy and other forms of inequality. This is why Evola called his critique of Italian Fascism—hereafter, simply “Fascism”—Fascism Viewed from the Right. He believed that Fascism had promise, but that it had deviated in important ways from the ideal Right-wing regime because it had not fully adopted the principles and structures of the best forms of European government prior to the French Revolution. In his view, Classical Rome was a particularly inspiring model. Evola had described the proper Traditional regime in two other books, Men Among the Ruins and Revolt Against the Modern World, and Fascism Viewed from the Right can be seen as an application of these earlier works to a real regime.



Evola limited his critique to the doctrinal elements of Fascism. The fact that Fascist Italy and its ally Germany lost a terrible war did not discredit Fascism any more than a victory would have endorsed it. Likewise, for Evola, the personal failings or virtues of particular figures in the regime—Benito Mussolini in particular—were irrelevant to his analysis.

Evola’s task was difficult, because Fascism did not have a formally elucidated doctrine, unlike Communism or, to a lesser extent, National Socialism. Thus, Evola focused on Fascism’s institutional reality and on Mussolini’s positions, since he was the regime’s principal exponent.

Evola was primarily concerned with the Fascism of the “Twenty Years,” which began with the March on Rome in 1922 and ended in 1943 when Mussolini was deposed after the Allied invasion of southern Italy. The Germans freed Mussolini later that year and installed him in northern Italy, but Evola dismissed the Fascism of what was called the Italian Social Republic because he found it different and less promising.

Fascism and the State

In the wake of the First World War, Italy’s weak and corrupt liberal democratic government and powerless monarchy were ill-suited to deal with the crippling debt, inflation, and socialist agitations plaguing the nation. In this environment Benito Mussolini emerged as a source of hope, riding currents of nationalist sentiment and veteran discontent to a coup d’état: the 1922 March on Rome, which led King Victor Emmanuel III to invite Mussolini to form a government.


Benito Mussolini, during the March on Rome.

By 1926, Mussolini had consolidated power and spoke of his view of the state:

We stand for a new principle in [today’s] world, we stand for sheer, categorical, definitive antithesis to the world of democracy, plutocracy, Freemasonry, to the world which still abides by the fundamental principles laid down in 1789.

For Evola, this was very promising—a “conservative revolution” that sought to return to an idea of the state that the French Revolution had overthrown. Mussolini rejected both socialism and democracy, and tried to establish a state that came before and was superior to both the people and their history or aspirations. In Mussolini’s words: “The nation does not beget the State . . . . On the contrary, the nation is created by the State, which gives the people . . . the will, and thereby an effective existence.” Evola considered this superior to National Socialism, in which the state was said to rise out of the “race” or “Volk.”

But how does a state—a purely political entity—create a people? In Evola’s view, the Fascist state was not just a bureaucracy that protected liberties and gave citizens a certain level of well-being. It was an active, organizing force that shaped the people and gave it direction. Mussolini himself evoked Classical Roman conceptions of authority (auctoritas) and political sovereignty (imperium), thus trying to link his regime to Ancient Rome, which Evola considered to be “the only truly valid legacy of all the history that has taken place on Italian soil.”

Evola drew a distinction between two kinds of state. One kind is defined from below, by “social” factors, and is established to promote material well-being. The typical example would be a democracy, in which different groups and factions agree on a framework to advance material ends. The other kind of state, which Evola considered a vast improvement, is not defined from below but sanctioned from above, by a transcendent principle. The typical example would be a monarchy empowered by divine right.

King Charles I being crowned "from above."

King Charles I being crowned “from above.”

Evola was, himself, deeply spiritual, and believed that only in a regime with a transcendent purpose did such Roman virtues as honor and service to the state gain their full meaning. He believed that without some spiritual purpose, the individual impulse for “self-transcendence” could not rise any higher than material goals that aim merely at the increase of physical comfort.

Mussolini claimed that Fascism had religious values, but Evola believed the regime never achieved a spiritual sanction which would have given it a transcendent character. Without religious sanction, man’s best efforts are largely wasted: “Even elements like struggle and heroism, loyalty and sacrifice, contempt for death, and so on can take on an irrational, naturalistic, tragic and dark character.”

Evola also recognized the totalitarian threat of Fascism, though he considered this threat “from the point of view not of a shapeless liberal democracy, but rather of a true Right.” In particular, Evola criticized the Fascist slogan “Everything in the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.” He considered this intrusive and coercive. The Traditional state, for Evola, “acts out of prestige with an authority that can, of course, resort to force, but abstains from it as much as possible.” He approved of what he called “rational decentralization,” as opposed to the systematic interference by the state that is characteristic of socialist regimes that care only about material progress.

The Fascist government is often called a dictatorship, but Evola preferred the term “dyarchy,” because Fascism coexisted with the monarchy. Evola believed the monarchy is the “center of gravity” in a Traditional regime, providing a “stable principle of pure political authority.” In exceptional circumstances, it might be necessary for a sovereign to appoint someone with particular qualifications to lead the state. Evola compared this to the ancient Roman Senate’s appointment of a dictator, and he offered Richelieu, Metternich, and Bismarck as more recent examples.

Victor Emmanuel III was King throughout the Fascist era.

Victor Emmanuel III was King throughout the Fascist era.

Evola thought it was absurd for the Fascist government to declare itself a “one-party state.” Parties of any kind were a throwback to materialist, democratic regimes. On the route to power, the National Fascist Party might have served as a necessary galvanizing force, but beyond this, Evola says it should have dropped the concepts and language of democratic pretense and tried to establish an “order.” By this he meant a cadre of superior men who would serve the same function as the nobility in older European regimes. These men would not form a political party. Instead, they would be men the people would obey out of a sense of awe and admiration, not because they felt them to be “one of us” or an embodiment of the “will of the people.”

The “will of the people,” after all, is to be shaped by the state, not the other way around. Evola therefore had no sympathy for the populist elements of Fascism, such as the paroxysms of patriotism and nationalism that arose around the “cult of the leader.” He recognized the galvanizing potential of these enthusiasms but disliked their appeal to the “sub-personal aspects of man as mass-man.”

Mussolini speaks to the people from the Palazzo Venezia.

Mussolini speaks to the people from the Palazzo Venezia.

Evola distinguished between representative systems that are egalitarian and those that are not. Egalitarian systems are based on one-man-one-vote, which Evola deplored: The idea that it is progress to give the same vote to a great thinker and an “illiterate butcher’s boy . . . is one of the many absurdities that, perhaps, in better times will be the cause of amazement or amusement.”

A proper system of representation gives precedence to quality over quantity. In this respect, Evola approved of the Chamber of Fasces and Corporations, established in 1939, because it took the place of the Chamber of Deputies, which was based on elections. In the Chamber of Fasces, corporations and unions had influence in proportion to their size and importance, which was a better reflection of the economy.

Mussolini left the Italian Senate unchanged, however; Evola called it “an inefficient, decorative superstructure.” He would have favored an upper house that represented “meta-economic” and “transcendent” aspects of the state, as a counterbalance to the Chamber of Fasces, which was composed of experts.

Fascism and Race

It is common to try to discredit Fascism, not only because of the war, but because it was “racist.” Even in 1964, when Evola published this book, anti-democratic thinkers who saw some value in Fascism tried to explain away Fascist racial thought as a malignant Nazi influence. They claimed that Fascism was not anti-Semitic, and that even during the German occupation of Italy, there was little persecution of Jews. Fascism often protected Jews.

Evola wrote that absolving Fascism of anti-Semitism does not absolve it of racial thinking. He did agree, however, that the notorious “Manifesto on Race” of 1938 was heavily influenced by Nazism. It referred to race as a “purely biological concept,” which, as we will see, was not at all Evola’s view. “The foreign influence here is clear,” he wrote, “since [the Manifesto] specified that Fascist racism should be of ‘Nordic-Aryan orientation.’ ” For Italy, such an orientation was absurd. Evola wrote that to the extent that Italians were Aryans, they were of the “Aryo-Roman” type. Moreover, Evola objected that “Aryan” was not defined, nor was the character of the Aryan explained. For him, the manifesto was a “bungled and inconsistent” document that should have been distinct from German racism.

Evola emphasized, however, that Fascist racial thinking was a reflection of three factors that were independent of Nazi influence. The first, and least significant to Evola, was the “Hebraic problem.” Evola noted there were hardly any references to Jews in Mussolini’s early writings. One of the few was an article from 1919 in which Mussolini wondered whether Bolshevism was “Israel’s revenge against the Aryan race,” since Jewish bankers in New York and London supported it, and many Bolshevik leaders were Jewish.

Fascist-Jewish relations were essentially neutral until 1938. There were Jewish Blackshirts, and there was a Jewish pro-Fascist newspaper. Evola thought that whatever hostility was directed at Italian Jews was the result of “militant anti-Fascist hostility demonstrated by Jewish elements abroad, especially in America.” This hostility increased greatly after Italy’s alliance with Germany, and Italian Jews “ended up suffering the consequences of the attitude of their non-Italian co-religionists.” Evola added that anti-Jewish measures “very often remained on paper and were not enforced.” In any case, Evola thought that how the Fascists handled the Jewish question was more a political matter than one of doctrine, and therefore irrelevant to any evaluation of Fascist doctrine itself.

Ettore Ovazza, right, was a wealthy patron of Mussolini. He founded the Jewish pro-Fascist newspaper "La Nostra Bandiera" (Our Flag).

Ettore Ovazza, right, was a wealthy Jewish patron of Mussolini. He founded the Jewish pro-Fascist newspaper “Nostra Bandiera” (Our Flag).

The second contributor to Italian race thinking was a “practical” and “non-ideological” race consciousness that was eventually used to justify the conquest of Ethiopia. This was no doubt the purpose of Mussolini’s 1938 call for “a clear, severe consciousness of race that would establish not only differences, but also very clear superiorities.”

Evola wrote that this kind of “racism” was an inevitable part of modern empire-building. It “nourished a sentiment of ‘race’ in order to protect the prestige of Whites . . . and to prevent miscegenation.” It solved “the problem of the legitimacy of the right to rule over a people and their culture.” In Evola’s view, however, this was not always successful:

[W]e have to acknowledge that this legitimacy was largely non-existent, when it was not a question of savages, Negroes, and other inferior races, but of peoples that already possessed their own ancient civilization and tradition, like, for instance, the case of the Hindus. To these peoples, “Whites” could present nothing besides their technological civilization and their material and organizational superiority, along with Christianity and its strange claim to be the only true religion or, at least, the highest religion.

Evola wrote that the European powers were not, in some cases, legitimate colonists because their “superiority” was based on strictly material or biological factors. A cultural or spiritual purpose might have justified rule over other races, but neither Italy nor any other power could make such a claim.


The third reason Fascism was led to confront race explicitly is the one Evola thought the most important. This was the development of a “racism in the proper, positive sense” that was not an invidious comparison with other groups. From the beginning of his regime, Mussolini spoke of creating “a new way of life” and “a new type of Italian.” Evola believed that the people of Israel had gone through such a process. Diaspora Jews were “not a single pure and homogenous race, but was instead an ethnic compound united and formed by a religious tradition.” Over time, this ethnic compound remained unified against adversity, causing it to become a new people. Evola also wrote that in the United States, an “easily recognizable type” formed from an “unlikely ethnic mix” under the discipline of a uniform culture.

In Italy, likewise, the state could have created what Evola called a “climate of high tension” that inspired Italians to go beyond themselves. This would have taken the form of an “appeal to special forms of sensibility, vocation, and the interests of individuals,” though there was no guarantee of success: “If the appeal finds no echo, little of what really matters can be attained in another way.”

For Evola, the goal was for a people, unified under a stable culture and tradition, to develop physically in a way that reflected their “mode of being” or “interior race.” For him, race was not just a biological concept, but one with an inner spiritual dimension. The aim of a “positive racism,” as opposed to ranking against other races, was “human completeness,” in which the physical race and race of the spirit were aligned.

Evola’s views on race are important for Fascism. Mussolini had read Evola’s Synthesis of a Doctrine of Race and invited Evola to come talk to him about the book. Evola wrote about the meeting:

It is symptomatic that he approved of its theses unconditionally, and finally agreed that we would undertake some rather significant initiatives based on the book. The crisis of events and certain internal doubts kept us from completing them.

We do not know what these initiatives would have been but Evola’s thinking would certainly have influenced them.

Evola reminds the reader that Mussolini had had a long-standing interest in race that predated any German influence. As early as 1921, he gave a speech tying Fascism to “a profound, perennial need of our Aryan and Mediterranean stock, that at a certain moment felt itself threatened in its essential reasons for existence.” The same year, he proclaimed “it is with the race that history is made,” and, in 1927, he warned, “We must rigorously watch over the destiny of the race; we must take care of the race.” These sentiments were Mussolini’s own; not borrowings from Nazis.

After Fascism

In April 1951, Julius Evola was arrested at his home in Rome on charges of “glorifying fascism” and of having “attempted to reconstitute the dissolved Fascist Party.” He was imprisoned for six months and then a two-month trial began. Like Socrates, Evola was charged for “corrupting the youth,” and like Socrates in the Apology, Evola issued an Autodifesa (self-defense statement).

Julius Evola

Julius Evola

Citing many of the points made above, and noting that he never joined the Fascist Party, Evola said he was a defender of an aristocratic tradition that predated Fascism and was superior to it. He said if this was a crime, and “if such are the terms of the accusation, I would be honored to see, seated at the same bench of accusation, such people as Aristotle, Plato, the Dante of De Monarchia, and so on up to Metternich and Bismarck.”

Unlike that of Socrates, Evola’s defense was successful.

Topics: ,

Share This

Henry Wolff
Henry Wolff is the assistant editor of American Renaissance.
We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • I never critique National Socialism either.

  • Big Bill

    I think the middle-road that Evola was seeking has been largely created in Israel. It is very much an ethno-nationalist and socialist state, yet does not seek to exterminate Arabs and Christians, just marginalize them and limit their power and influence. They know that they are lesser partners in Israel and have never been government ministers or ranking officers (over Jews, at least) in the Jewish Army.

    They are not, of course, actually invited to BECOME Jews. In that sense, Israel, like Judaism, is and will remain a two caste system (Jews+Torah and Gentiles+Noachide Law) . But they are not expelled or exterminated. They just need to know their place. And cannot be permitted to change the ethnic character of the state or country.

    • Interesting comment. Now if only the Jews in White countries would learn their place in relation to the native White peoples…

    • Looks like I asspained a very sensitive mod with my fairly benign comment so I’ll repost it:

      Interesting comment. Now if only Jews living in White countries would learn their place in relation to the native White peoples…

      • JohnEngelman

        That mod made the right decision.

        • LOL. What better way to vindicate comments that criticize Jewish hostility towards Whites in White countries than to demand that such comments be silenced. 😀

    • Exterminating is very bad, and also not very nice but what steams me about the US is how the filth that leads us bends over backwards to support people who shouldn’t be supported. Instead of rounding up people and making them “not here anymore,” we import millions and invite millions more to come on down and set up shop. Here is some cash, here is food for life, have a home, no take two, I value your opinion, have a degree you are so beautiful we are all the same–it makes me want to puke my lungs out. It is the polar opposite of extermination.

      • Mr.Bedlam

        You can compare the Western Nations these days to a man with a garden who fertilizes the weeds and kills the vegetables – and then wondering why he is hungry – puts more fertilizer on the weeds……….

        • Yes, these are common sense things– if you don’t work, you don’t eat. The millions of illegals who are here wouldn’t have jobs if we upheld the law. They would self-deport without jobs and handouts. During a time of economic depression, where citizens are struggling for work, it’s insane. Affirmative action putting dimwits into good-paying positions with no merit, also insane. And I think that is the reason why things are so unstable now, and the air is thick with confusion– we’re like a ship that is headed for an iceberg in full daylight, and the captain for whatever reason won’t admit where we’re headed. In that particular scenario, you take a shovel and whack the captain over the head and take control of the wheel. I’m shocked, shocked, that with all the bullets that are floating around this country, all the billions of bullets, not a single one has been fired in defiance, in revolution. It makes you shake your head in disgust. That, and am I the only person that thinks Benito Mussilini looks very serious in that photo with his hands on his hips?

          • Michael_C_Scott

            “If you don’t work, you don’t eat.”

            I dug up the vegetable garden today, to three feet down until I hit the clam shells I buried 15 years ago, and buried six months’ worth of kitchen scraps, hibachi ash, pistachio shells and two trash cans full of dry leaves I swept up from the alley last autumn.

            If you can’t garden or farm, we’ll teach you. If you won’t, we’ll make you. Or you won’t eat. Someday, there will be a different group of people in charge of the United States.

      • wretchedwhiterabbit

        “what steams [you]” is judeo-liberalism, intended to weaken the dominant cultures in [White] countries by moral subversion

        you can’t be “friends” with someone whose goal is to weaken you…kinda like how Russia currently will allow Western investors into Russia, but will not tolerate subversive activity

  • JohnEngelman

    Julius Evola expressed his affection for “monarchy, aristocracy and other forms of inequality,” but he did not explain why these are beneficial to those who are not monarchs and aristocrats.

    Since the French Revolution Europeans have enjoyed unprecedented prosperity and freedom under representative democracy and mixed social democratic economies.

    • “Since the French Revolution Europeans have enjoyed unprecedented
      prosperity and freedom under representative democracy and mixed social
      democratic economies.”

      Oh, and systemic genocide via mass importation of violent non-Whites. That one’s easy to forget.

      • JohnEngelman

        gen·o·cide [jen-uh-sahyd] Show IPA
        the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial,political, or cultural group.

        Immigration is not the same as genocide.

        • IstvanIN

          In this case it is.

          • ImTellinYa

            I have to agree. The importation of hostile third-world savages into White countries is destroying those countries and the most successful civilization history has ever seen. EVERYTHING we are and that we have accomplished is threatened by our “leaders” and their nonWhite foot soldiers. Our leaders are now just another hostile, criminal gang. They can no longer claim to wield legitimate authority. And that smacking homosexual currently defiling the White House is literally an illegal dictator.

          • JohnEngelman

            “Our leaders” who promote unlimited third world immigration are largely in the business community. They are the Americans who benefit by importing cheap labor. For reasons of personal psychology many posters here seem unwilling to condemn the business community. They would rather condemn liberal Jews.

          • David Ashton

            I condemn all those who promote unlimited third world immigration. They include members of the business community and left-wing organizations, both Jews and Gentiles. Some Jews have an instinctive hostility to “racism” and sympathy for people of similar migrant ancestry; and others are opposed to Muslim and other ethnic groups hostile to Israel and Jewish business-men.

          • JohnEngelman

            The two issues where I have the most in common with most who post here is the need to restrict all immigration, and the need to publicize the reality about black crime. It is a serious problem It is not our fault. It is genetic.

            Unlike many here I like cultural diversity as long as it is voluntary and earned. I am opposed to affirmative action.

            Unlike most liberals nationally I am aware that a high rate of immigration is a major factor behind the growing income gap.

        • MikeofAges

          Immigration can be one element of the policy. Others could be denial of educational and career opportunities, suppression of cultural identity and its transmission from generation to generation and suppression of the birthrate. The latter is the ultimate aim of non-violent genocide.

          Oh, and just because it doesn’t hurt and bleed doesn’t mean it’s not genocide.

      • MikeofAges

        And destructive total warfare. Internal genocide and mass murder. Unspeakable tyranny. I’m beginning to cotton to the idea of monarchy. After all, only one person is the sovereign King or Queen and the rest aren’t. A small price to pay for a little peace. In our age, all of them try very hard to make a good showing at it and generally succeed quite well. Because the job is within the capacities of a normal human being, given a some commitment to it.

    • IstvanIN

      France was quite unstable until after WW2, and will be again. Overthrowing Louis XVI did more harm than good. As did overthrowing the Romanovs.

      • JohnEngelman

        In the most stable governments monarchies had the good sense to become figurehead monarchies, and established religions were enlightened enough to allow religious freedom. I am thinking of the Scandinavian countries and the UK.

        Violent revolutions leave deep scars and enduring hatreds, as did our own Civil War.

        After the Russo – Japanese War of 1904 – 05 Russia created a Duma, and was evolving in the direction of a representative democracy with a figurehead Czar.

        The First World War became inevitable when Russia mobilized. Until then the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria was only leading to a regional conflict between Serbia and Austria Hungary.

        If Russia had not mobilized the First World War would have been avoidable, and Russia would have continued to evolve peacefully in a democratic direction.

        • IstvanIN

          You are assuming the Bolsheviks wouldn’t have continued their assault in Christian Russia and her imperial family.

          • JohnEngelman

            The assault would not have been successful if the First World War had not demonstrated that the Czarist government was militarily incompetent.

            For a time the American Communist Party wanted to overthrow the U.S. government, but it never came close.

          • Der Typ

            Two words… Pacific and Atlantic. That might have had just a little bit to do with the communist party’s success in America as far as a military coup is concerned, don’t ya think? I mean Mexico ain’t exactly Germany, if you catch my drift.

            And we’re not even going to touch upon the reds’ success in America using subtler ways than military coups.

          • JohnEngelman

            Those in the American Communist Party had the right to express their opinions. Democracy works best when the voters have access to many different points of view, such as those coming from American Renaissance.


          • Michael_C_Scott

            No, they don’t, and people like me are willing to prove it any chance we get.

          • JohnEngelman

            Why don’t Communist Party members have the right to express their opinions?

            I have known and liked members of the American Communist People. They were harmless.

          • David Ashton

            You discount organized communist subversion and front organizations.
            “Toward Soviet America” was one statement of aims.
            Alger Hiss was one example of methods.

          • JohnEngelman

            Democracy works best when the voters have access to a wide variety of facts and Ideas. Members of the Communist Party have the same right those whose opinions are expressed on American Renaissance have to express their opinions.

            The only legitimate concerns raised by an organization like the American Communist Party are terrorism and espionage.

            To the best of my knowledge the American Communist Party never engaged in terrorism, and rarely engaged in espionage. The Soviet Union would have developed the atomic bomb without information passed to it by Ethel and Julius Rosenberg. The Soviets did develop the hydrogen bomb without the help of American spies.

            Spies are often motivated by non ideological considerations. They resent being passed over for promotion, or they want to make money.

            During the Cold War Communist Party members, Communist sympathizers, fellow travelers, and members of other Marxist parties like the Socialist Workers’ Party had the right to express their sympathy with the Soviet Union and other Communist countries. They had the right to criticize American foreign and military policy. Those who argue otherwise expose a clandestine fear that there are truths the Communists and their kind were trying to propagate.

            If those on the left, even the totalitarian left, had been more free to express their ideas in the United States this country would have been less likely to have made mistakes like the War in Vietnam.

            Much of the anti Communist hysteria generated during the Cold War was generated by reactionaries who wished to discredit the reforms of the New Deal. Their argument was that New Deal Reforms are the same as socialism. Socialism is the same as Communism.

            This is known in logic as the guilt by association fallacy and the slippery slope fallacy.



          • David Ashton

            The old LP record again.
            (1) Moissaye J. Olgin, “Why Communism?” (NY: Workers Library,1935)
            (2) John T. Flynn, “The Lattimore Story” (NY: Devin-Adair, 1953)
            (3) Harvey Klehr, John Earl Haynes & Fridrikh Igorevich Firsov, “The Secret World of American Communism” (New Haven: Yale UP, 1995)
            (4) John Earl Haynes, Harvey Klehr & Alexander Vassiliev, “Spies: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America” (New Haven: Yale UP, 2009)
            (5) Robert Gellately, “Stalin’s Curse: Battling for Communism in War and Cold War” (NY: Oxford University Press, 2013)

            (Nizkor itself is not entirely squeaky clean when commenting on “Holocaust Deniers”.)

          • JohnEngelman

            Whenever someone gives me a reading list I conclude that I have won the argument. If you read those books with understanding you should be able to reproduce their arguments in your own words.

            The reason my arguments may sound like an “old LP record” is that they remain valid.

            My argument once again is that the American Communist Party was never guilty of terrorism, that it was rarely guilty of espionage, and that it had a legitimate, and indeed valuable role to play in a healthy debate of political facts, truths, and alternatives.

            Those of us who condemn efforts to suppress American Renaissance conferences, should agree with me about defending the right of members of the American Communist Party to express their opinions.

          • David Ashton

            I do not deny anyone the right to express communist opinions.

            Again, the LP record: you say have won an argument, because your opponents cannot summarize all the pages of contrary factual detail in refutations on this website and you personally are not interested in extending your knowledge, especially if it might disturb your imperturbable confidence in the perpetual validity of your existing views.

            Other readers may be interested in the tiny selection of books I listed that disprove your opinions based on such flimsy stuff as your old friendship with some harmless communists. You could at least look at the contents summary via Amazon. But here are a few points from the references above:

            Olgin was a member of the CPUSA Central Committee and editor of its Yiddish journal. He wrote, for example, “There is one way to abolish the capitalist state, and that is to smash it by force.” He provides details of the eventual armed uprising.

            Klehr and others document extensively in over a thousand total pages many connections, largely from Soviet archives, between the CPUSA and espionage organizations. The Rosenbergs were just a fraction of the problem.

          • JohnEngelman

            Olgin was a member of the CPUSA Central Committee and editor of its Yiddish journal. He wrote, for example, “There is one way to abolish the capitalist state, and that is to smash it by force.” He provides details of the eventual armed uprising.

            – David Ashton

            There was never the remotest possibility of a Communist Revolution in the United States.

          • David Ashton

            Probably not, but the question was whether the CPUSA thought so.

            I am not going to copy out information from books you refuse to read, but give you the page references on classified information: (3) pp.216-227 & 230; (4) pp.33-143 &c.

            In my personal view, Klehr & Co are too generous to Oppenheimer and too critical of McCarthy.

          • JohnEngelman

            Klehr and others document extensively in over a thousand total pages many connections, largely from Soviet archives, between the CPUSA and espionage organizations. The Rosenbergs were just a fraction of the problem.

            – David Ashton

            If anyone in the CPUSA beside the Rosenbergs passed classified information to the USSR, you should be able to list the occasions.

          • MikeofAges

            John, I am sure you can find of all of those books within the vast, decentralized public library systems of Santa Clara County. You could at least give them a look-see as you travel around. At lot times, you can very quickly get the point of a book without having to go cover-to-cover, as I am sure you know.

          • JohnEngelman

            I would like for someone to give me a documented list of proven cases of espionage by members of the American Communist Party.

            I strongly suspect that this kind of spying was far more common during the Cold War: John “Walker began spying for the Soviets in December 1967,[7] when, distraught over his financial difficulties, he walked into the Soviet Embassy in Washington, DC, sold a top secret document (a radio cipher card) for several thousand dollars, and negotiated an ongoing salary of $500 to $1,000 a week.”

          • David Ashton

            Don’t be lazy. Klehr gives you a list. There are also fellow-travelers and members of the “underground party”. See Lattimore.

          • JohnEngelman

            When I make an assertion I usually document it myself. I never say something and tell those who do not want to believe it that it is their responsibility to prove me wrong.

          • David Ashton

            You like internet information, so try Wikipedia – “History of Soviet Espionage in the United States” & “Atomic Spies”. You don’t need to get off your seat and I don’t need to write it all out for you.

          • JohnEngelman

            By the end of 1936 at least four mid-level State Department officials were delivering information to Soviet intelligence: Alger Hiss, assistant to Assistant Secretary of State Francis Sayre; Julian Wadleigh, economist in the Trade Agreements Section; Laurence Duggan, Latin American division; and Noel Field, West European division. Whittaker Chambers later testified that the plans for a tank design with a revolutionary new suspension invented by J. Walter Christie (then being tested in the U.S.A.) were procured and put into production in the Soviet Union as the Mark BT, later developed into the famous Soviet T-34 tank.[9][10][11]…

            According to Yuri Shvets, a former KGB agent “In the days of the Soviet Union, the number of spies was limited because they had to be based at the foreign ministry, the trade mission or the news agencies like Tass.


            My initial statement was that while Communist espionage was a legitimate concern, Communist subversion was not. During the Cold War in the United States Communist Party members and Communist sympathizers were often prevented from teaching and producing Hollywood movies and television programs.

            In my opinion that was as wrong as preventing an American Renaissance conference from being held, or firing a public school teacher who argues in public that No Child Left Behind is failing in the United States because of intrinsic intelligence differences between most whites and most blacks.

          • David Ashton

            I am resisting the temptation to debate the “Reds in Hollywood” issue, &c.
            All I should like to point out is that the Stalinist terror in post-war eastern Europe, USSR and Red China was many times worse than the harassment of Stalinists in the USA.

          • JohnEngelman

            I agree with you. My point is that members of the CPUSA deserved to be able to express their opinions in the United States. We were supposed to be better than the Communists, remember? That is why we grant freedoms they denied, remember?

          • MikeofAges

            But it wouldn’t have succeeded. Just as the Maoist push in China would have failed in China absent the background of World War II and the backing of a victorious Stalin. And the dithering of the George Marshall as a diplomat and secretary of state.

            What an imbecile in that position. The Marshall Plan as it played out was not his plan at all even though it bore his name. Make you wonder sometimes what there was about him. Was he impaired? Compromised? Just over his head politically in a civilian position?

          • David Ashton

            There was a booklet on his record ghost-written and published as Senator McCarthy’s which lists some adverse facts.

          • MikeofAges

            Marshall was uniquely a fool. I don’t know why, but I have suggested a few reason. You can add to that the possibility that he was the front man for a secret establishment cabal which had made the decisions he then implemented. Especially strange considering he was a Southerner.

        • Michael_C_Scott

          You did that right, at least, John. Thank you!

      • rollo clevich

        After WWII France clearly became a protectorate of the American Empire-regardless of the pretensions of Gen. de Gaulle.

    • Der Typ

      Clearly we live in different dimensions. I’m in the one where the west is slowly dying a slow death and you seem to be in the one where west is doing just fine. Did you develop interdimensional travel, and you’re just keeping it a secret from MIT and NASA? You naughty boy!

      • JohnEngelman

        Even with the Great Recession those in the West enjoy levels of prosperity and health beyond what their ancestors hoped for.

    • wretchedwhiterabbit

      “Unprecedented prosperity and freedom” are vulgar, materialistic pursuits, at the root of what Evola opposed in the interest of divine sanction. Evola was a baron, nobility, above the common man who does not need an explanation for what he cannot comprehend anyway. The masses are asses. duh

      • JohnEngelman

        “Me me me” is what monarchs and aristocrats thought about when crushing democratic revolutions. They were living in luxury, and did not want to share their wealth with those whose labor created it.

  • NeanderthalDNA

    If only Hitler had adopted something more similar to Mussolini’s ideology…Italian fascist thought powered by German might would have conquered the world.

    Regardless I appreciate more and more the “third way” as my country flushes itself down the totalitarian democratic mob rule crapper of history.

    Issues I have with it…

    1. The militarism thing. The idea that nations must aggressively pick on those weaker because just because. I wonder what they would have thought post atom bomb? Regardless, although I support a military powerful enough to protect state and citizen (and project force if needed) I think the classical idea of war an antiquated notion fraught with danger unforeseen pre-fat man/little boy.

    I would replace much of the camaraderie and unifying purpose generated by high militarism with great projects. Public/private ventures which require massive human and capital involvement, which result in lasting (and eminently useful) monuments. In our particular case there are many possibilities, the space program and massive engineering responses to global climate change (especially rising sea levels), which come to mind. One day doomsday cometh and all the wealth hoarding and consumerist hedonism we democratic totalitarians love to confuse with purpose will matter not.

    1a. Furthermore as opposed to classic fascism I would add a sanctity of borders. Civilized nations need to endeavor to achieve economic autarky and using directed scientific research and implementation attempt to innovate solutions to resource problems – such as strategic resources located in hostile places. If a nation finds it has a deficiency in say, oil, that state should indeed use it’s military might to assure fair trade and flow, but it should also use it’s resources and talent to do everything possible to find another power source or implement energy independence, so as to ultimately obviate the need to rely on unreliable and hostile suppliers.

    2. Seems whatever the author felt, Mussolini did pretty well economically for his people. You know it was Bismark who was the father of Germany’s social welfare system. The concept of “noblesse oblige” isn’t exactly new, and many ethnically homogeneous European nations instituted solid social welfare systems that WERE a strength. It’s one thing for my tax money to help out MY people when they are down. Capitalism is kind of like death and taxes – good luck destroying it, commies, har har. Regardless, I would posit that much of our disgust with such concepts and practices stems from the fact that we are forced to support OTHERS who, to put it mildly, may not have our best interest in mind. Same happening in Europe now. Millions of (hostile) alien others being given our money and as a result of their numbers breaking a system that though never perfect, I would argue was one of the few “great projects” liberal democracies were able to accomplish. Unfortunate. I would argue, for many, many non-Marxist reasons.

    3. I see a place for “democracy” in some form. That’s a pretty squishy term – means pretty different things to different people. Regardless, there need be limits to guard against hyper-democratic mob rule grabs as well. Our founding fathers thought they had that one down but succeeding events and ideologies have done their damage. But at least in an American sense, “democracy” and “liberty” and all that are inextricable foundations of American nationalism and as such must be included in some form in our situation. I would argue in a better, more rational form.

    4. I believe in the Truth. I love the Truth. I believe this faith in something verifiable (beyond simple speculation), this search for non-relative Truth, is the dearest legacy of Western liberal democratic tradition. Certainly lesser spirits have gotten carried away with this love, have egregiously misidentified the Truth for numerous reasons, but…detest suppression of the stuff regardless of the oppressor.

    You know, in many ways our post WW2 system has looked more and more like some kind of obnoxious lib-lefty form of fascism if one goes though the list point by point. The race ideology of our government and it’s effort to force all to swallow comes to mind.

    Regardless any “new” philosophical/ideological movement must devote itself to the only source of propaganda worth gulping down – Truth. I rather advocate for what I call a “fourth way”, combining elements of other systems based on their non-ideological merits, as well as a healthy dose of merit based technocracy. “Third Way” alludes too much to fascism and to moderate Democrats of the nineties/oughts for me, and though I do admire much of the ideas that came out of the movement…

    1. Real reservations and…

    2. Won’t sell. “Fascism” is a slur and “third way” is too closely associated regardless of specificity.

    • Nationalist

      You express ideas I’ve been thinking for a long time. In light of our current multicultural disaster, Fascism is tempting. But totalitarianism is not the way for us. An inspiring ideology that galvanizes economically conservative whites into taking action to forge a country of our own would be welcomed, but it must come in the form of respecting the American ideals of liberty and representative government. What we need is not a new governmental structure, but a new ideal about who this great structure belongs to, and therefore who controls it and benefits from it.

      • ConcernedYoungAmerican

        I disagree; your idea of working within the confines of “American liberty and
        representative government” will only work when we have control of our
        own destiny again, and for that reason alone I think that something similar to fascism is our only solution. We need a Leader (capital ‘L’) that can do three things:

        1. He must arouse the dormant/crushed nationalist sentiments that existed throughout the Western world before the Second World War and the subsequent victories of Communism (USSR) and Liberal Internationalism (America); both of these ideologies disregard the volk and history itself because they aspire to a revolution of “human” values, not a revolution of a particular people, thereby ignoring the nation-state and infecting the society with poisonous ideologies such as multiculturalism. In short, blood has taken a backseat to vague and presumptuous values that are killing our entire civilization.

        2. He must have a monopoly on state-power and therefore on violence. This is the ONLY way to expel the filth that infests our homelands. We don’t need to conquer new territory, but we need expulsion and unwavering civilizational defense; I envision a NATO on steroids that will prevent anybody from ever crossing the Mediterranean again or entering the North Atlantic, etc.

        3. He must be able to break the power of transnational corporations and lay out an economic vision that will benefit the nation and all of the people, for what is a nation without its happy, healthy people? Yes, corporatism existed in Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, but through mixed economic policies, both nations were some of the first to climb out of the Great Depression and their people were “invested” in.

        The clock is ticking for the West; the faux “democracy” of the jewish elite isn’t working. A charismatic, nationalistic leader is the only thing that can save us. I predict the Europeans will beat us to finding him and I hope that his message will resonate with North America and Australasia. He will see my support.

        • I don’t think your ideals and the concepts of representative government are mutually exclusive. I think the American system invests enough legitimate power in governments such that what you think needs to get done can get done without the need for a power-hungry power-grabbing “Fuhrer” type.

          • ConcernedYoungAmerican

            But our government IS illegitimate; regardless of “elections”, it works for a cabal of bankers and genocidal cultural Marxists who have total disregard for the health of the nation and its founding stock. Furthermore, the root of our problems, the 1965 Immigration Act, was an illegitimate law that was vastly opposed by the people and did the exact opposite of what it said it would do (millions of immigrants DID flood our cities; demography HAS been changed). If a Fuhrer is the only thing that can save Europe and the rest of the Western world, then I choose him because I choose survival.

        • NeanderthalDNA

          A great leader may be the answer indeed, though I would prefer several or many great leaders.

          I think the first step beyond speculative networking is the establishment of some form of organization (“grass roots organization”) that advocates for and raises group consciousness of whites. Was it you that pointed out Saul Alinsky to me? Although he worked for the enemy, his ideas in Rules for Radicals sound like they would work for any underdog cause.

          Regardless I see the need for two organizations – one a-political and racially relevant and the other an a-racial political party which promotes a political agenda of merit and pragmatism and respect for science (Truth).

          • ConcernedYoungAmerican

            Agreed: We need a mass movement. I just have no idea where it will begin, as many Americans have been so brow-beaten. It wasn’t me who mentioned Alinsky (he’s often brought up because he’s been so damned successful in implementing Communism in the US), but his game can be reverse-engineered into a Nationalist revolution if someone articulate can lead the fight. Many whites want a revolution against the government (look at any comments sections on mainstream sites), but nobody has even rallied a march on Washington. White Americans need to realize that, yes, America was an “idea” that began in sharp contrast to the monarchical system of Europe, but our European culture has been hijacked and culture MATTERS to a great degree, so a revolution must work to preserve that heritage. Like I said though, if a Nationalist revolution occurs in Europe, it can spread like wildfire throughout the Western world…

          • NeanderthalDNA

            Yeah, I’m hoping for a critical mass of Europeans to reach a critical mass of humiliation and sense of betrayal. It’s coming, the question being whether soon enough.

            Social networking holds the promise for a beginning. Like this. The Towson State kid started here on the ol’ webbytubey I’m sure. We have to keep talking, spreading the word, supporting the cause. I think our enemies are terrified. They know something is up. The simmering discontent is approaching an explosive moment. Our enemies are genocidally furious they cant control what we think.

            First “social clubs”, organizations that celebrate our history and heritage, that offer safe zones for our people. Fellowship and aid/assistance to those of our people in need. Ironic how the liblefty paranoia concerning good ol’ boy networks and some kind of secret brotherhood of whites necessitates the creation of such. The heritage clubs then link, network, organize a la Alinsky and ADVOCATE. Legal, media, whatever. Articulate and astute folks who can keep a cool head while all others lose theirs need to be placed in front positions to deliver messages to the public. People who can tiptoe through the histrionic witch hunt minefield that awaits.

            By itself such an organization could do much good, but indeed a political movement must arise which focuses not necessarily specifically on “race” but on a laundry list of systemic changes the entire country needs to remain vital, competitive, and relevant. Dirty words like “merit” and “excellence” and “responsibility”, which are not racially charged, which in fact people of all groups who feel they can function in such a society can agree upon.

            Depending on how bad things get, another idea I’ve toyed with…

            The Well Ordered Militia, a branch of the white heritage organizations that basically does everything the NRA does and…

            Scares some people. Just a little. Maybe more, who knows? Totally legal, totally legit. Dedicated to protection of self and community, dedicated to not allowing our government have a monopoly on force it can use to bully and bleed it’s own most productive citizenry. The Well Ordered Militia.

        • MikeofAges

          If we keep a NATO, we also need a NATO that can ask questions such as “What part of the North Atlantic is the Ukraine in anyway?”

          What we really need in this world is a polar alliance encompassing the polar nations both north and south. Not necessarily a racial entity either. Korea and Japan in. China out. Argentina and Chile, maybe in. The rest of Latin America out. Even South Africa, maybe in. But no one else in that awful continent. In Europe, the question would be, “Are the Balkans and Iberia in or out?” That is a good question. But if we fail to organize on some basis, and stop using NATO as a front for provoking Russia through an overreaching ambition to include non-Atlantic countries in NATO , then we will end up with the world described by Orwell in “1984”. Oceania. Eurasia. East Asia.

          • ConcernedYoungAmerican

            NATO, as I’m sure you’re aware, is a Cold War institution that evolved into a “civilizational” alliance following the collapse of the USSR. Although we originally promised the Russians that NATO would not move “one inch to the East” past the Oder-Neisse River following German reunification, Eastern Europe was incorporated anyway (for good reason, in my opinion), with Croatia and Albania being the latest additions in 2009. We’ve been trying to get Ukraine and Georgia in since the Bucharest Summit of 2008, but Russia’s invasion of Georgia in the summer of that year sidetracked that goal. In my opinion, we need to recognize Russia as an integral part of our civilization as well and entice them into joining NATO on EQUAL footing with the United States (or else they will never join). As to your question about Iberia and the Balkans, yes, they are European, and many of those states are already in NATO, though I wish we could expel the Muslims of the Balkan Peninsula (and everywhere else around Europe).

            As to the polar alliances you mention, many of these are already in effect. NATO colludes with the ANZUS treaty, by which America vows to protect Australia and New Zealand. A “containment” arc is being implemented around a rising China, with South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines, Vietnam, and possibly India being pivots in the arc. I agree that we need to do more to entice Chile, Argentina, and Uruguay into our camp, as they are fundamentally European countries (Brazil actually has the second largest number of white people in one country–after the United States–but the Amerindian and African populations dilutes its European flavor and economic prospects). Africa and the Middle East need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis: For example, we need to drop Saudi Arabia as an ally because of their exportation of Wahhabism, but Bahrain and Kuwait have been excellent allies.

            In short, I see absolutely no problem working with other civilizations as long as we resurrect ourselves as Europeans and expel the foreigners in our midst.

          • MikeofAges

            Much of what you say is true. But that still begs the question of who belongs and who does not belong in the polar alliance. As I defined the issue, the most important nuance, undoubtedly, was Korea and Japan in. China out. That doesn’t mean that we can do business with them and have cultural interchange. And hope for the end of the Maoist regime.

            If you are going to pursue the idea, you have to be strict about what it means. The bedrock of the idea is not polar land. It is polar man.

        • David Ashton

          No sign of a candidate as yet.
          “The hour does not always find the man.”

        • Nationalist

          So would you want the conservative white Americans subject to arbitrary arrest without due process? Would you want a secretive government with no freedom of the press? Why couldn’t there be a slogan like “liberty for ‘Americans,’ expulsion for the rest,” with ‘Americans referring to white English-speaking patriots? I am a white nationalist, but I don’t want my family and friends subject to the threats we should levy against non-whites. Fascism in its essence–raw dictatorial power over expendable individuals–seems unnecessary.

    • Rex

      It is not entirely clear to me how a term like “fascism” can be other than schizy
      overinclusive if applied to both (a) an expansionist military state like Nazi Germany
      and (b) an integral corporate state like fascist Italy.

  • steve7789

    Italian fascism never developed a strong racial consciousness primarily because of Italy’s Catholic religion, the same church which encourage widespread and vigorous miscegenation in the Spanish and Portugese colonies while the British and Dutch ones remained relatively pure. It is no coincidence that only the two Western societies which resisted the post 1945 racial order, South Africa and Dixie, were societies deeply comitted to Calvinism. The use of the Bibleas the ultimate authority instead of the Pope allowedthemto study and understand the Bible’s racial message.

    • What is also no coincidence that the two Western societies which most mightily resisted egalitarianism after 1945, South Africa and Dixie, were and still are replete with blacks. Patterson’s First Axiom.

      • Charles Edward Lincoln III

        I strongly disagree with you that South Africa and “Dixie” are “the two Western societies which most mightily resisted egalitarianism after 1945.” I would say that the States of Israel and Saudi Arabia have most mightily and effectively resisted egalitarianism. Israel and Saudi Arabia still maintain inequality based on race, religion, and national status where South Africa and the Southern United States have been pretty much coerced into acceptance of not only equality but “desegregation.” This is one of the horrible ironies and tragedies of the modern world. Either we were wrong about our own countries or wrong to support theirs—and I would point out that throughout it’s life, National Party-Conservative South Africa during Apartheid supported Israel almost as unqualifiedly as the United States, even when most countries sanctioned and all but blockaded South Africa.

        • frederickdixon

          Israel western? Maybe. But Saudi Arabia? Surely not.

          • Charles Edward Lincoln III

            I cannot think of any nation in the Near East, other than Israel, more closely aligned with both British and American Interests, or so consistently, than Saudi Arabia, from the time of T.E. Lawrence to the Present. Are they “Western” by religion or language, certainly not. Are they “Western” by Political Alliance? As much so as Japan today, but historically for even longer and with no “World War II” interruptions…. Since it came into existence, Saudi Arabia has been consistently more “West Aligned” than any other Arab or Muslim State I can think of…. except maybe tiny Lebanon….

    • This isn’t true. The Catholic Church most certainly did not encourage miscegenation during the period of Italian Fascism. As a matter of fact Italians are genetically apart from most Europeans.

    • SirMe

      Italians and Spanish probably find it harder to relate to radical awareness compared to the Northern Europeans. A lot of people put the Mediterranean people in the same bracket (Southern European, Northern Africa, Israel, Lebanon Turkey) as a racial group.

      • Le Gaulois

        “A lot of people put the Mediterranean people in the same bracket
        (Southern European, Northern Africa, Israel, Lebanon Turkey) as a
        racial group.”

        They do, but it is incorrect as Y- DNA for example clearly shows that both Italians and Spaniards have more in common with other Europeans. They are both indeed darker due to the Mediterranean climate, but the majority of their haplogroups are not the same as Northern Africans and Middle Easterners:

        Distribution of European Y-DNA by Country in Percentage:


        • Michael Ryan

          northern italians are actually celtic but so is most of europe one type of celt or another.

        • Jefferson

          If Italians have no Middle Eastern genes in their DNA, why do many Italians look closer to a Syrian in phenotype than they do to a Swede.

          • They do, HBD in the absence of a barrier is clinal.

            Italians are simply Italians not Syrians or Swedes, but this simple fact confuses Americans.

        • Haplogroups are the markers of migration routes and nothing more.

      • zimriel

        Italy also has that north / south divide. Sicily, in particular, is historically Greek and North African / Lebanese.

        • Epiminondas

          The descendants of the semitic Carthaginians are in evidence today in Sicily. Their group behavior vis a vis organized crime certainly supports a genetic predisposition to see “the other” as an enemy to be disposed of and treated differently than one’s own group.

          • David Ashton

            Normans also came south to Sicily.

          • Epiminondas

            True, but unfortunately not in enough numbers to make much of a genetic impact.

          • Weird, kooky and evidence-deficient amateur HBDism.

          • Epiminondas

            Written with all the panache of a fanatic, but with none of the acumen of a knowledgeable person.

          • Do you have any evidence that the Mafia families are more Carthaginian than native Sicilian?

      • luca732005

        “A lot of people put the Mediterranean people in the same bracket (Southern European, Northern Africa, Israel, Lebanon Turkey) as a racial Group.”

        The literati taught that Italy had moral and intellectual primacy because it was the cradle of European civilization — of Roman law, of Christian thought, of the Renaissance. Italy could be the spiritual empire that transforms and unites Western civilization. Samuels, Richard J. Machiavelli’s Children. Cornell University Press, 2005. p. 33.

        “Italy’s cultural inventions provided the standards to which Europeans complied in literature, architecture, art, and music until the end of the 19th century.” Gregory Hanlon, Ph.D., Professor of European History at Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia, Canada.

        Roman State: 2.236 Years. Ancient Rome is the progenitor of Western civilization. The customs, religion, law, technology, architecture, political system, military, literature, languages, alphabet, government and many factors and aspects of western civilization are all inherited from Italian advancements.

        If the Italians are like the Turks then this “race” is more Intelligent.

        P.s. Leonardo da Vinci’s IQ was estimated to have been approximately 220 — considered an unmeasurable Genius.

        … artist, scientist, inventor, painter, sculptor, architect, engineer, mathematician, physicist, philosopher, humanist, alchemist, biologist, naturalist, anatomist, geologist, technologist, astronomer, cartographer, botanist, cryptographer, geometer, draftsman, designer, scenographer, stylist, musician, writer, author and poet.

        Ps.s. The northern Europeans were barbarians (see Tacitus)

        • One of Leonardo da Vinci’s teachers basically invented the field of accounting. Actually, what he invented was double entry bookkeeping, which is based on the common sense supposition that every economic transaction is a matter of parties simultaneously giving up and receiving some items of mutual consideration. But it was a short step of understanding from there to the field of and precepts of financial and managerial accounting.

      • Of course such matters only appear as an impediment to racial awareness, in the sense of an American myth of a Europe that never really existed. People living in Europe will naturally have an awareness of their own races, that don’t fit American myth-spinning.

    • Jim G

      The Catholic Church does not encourage miscegenation. If you will note most Black and White couplings whether the older variety of White male / Black female or the current variety of White female / Black male are outside marriage.

      Church doctrine holds sexual intercourse outside marriage is a grave sin. I wonder where some people come up with these off the wall notions about Christianity and the
      Catholic Church.

      A valid criticism of the Catholic Church and its approach tothe race problem in America is that Catholic Church in America sided with the pro-Blacks and anti-White forces at a critical time, the 1960’s Civil Rights Movement. The anti-White forces
      destroyed solid ethnic Catholic neighborhoods that were a stronghold for the Church and the heart and soul of the big cities of America.

      Cardinals and Bishops wanted to be accepted by the elites and so abandon their flock to join with the in-crowd. They condemned White Catholics natural preference for one’s own race. Something Thomas Aquinas would never have done.

      As we all see now the Sex Revolution and the Civil Rights Revolution were two sides of the same coin. How silly of the Cardinals and Bishops to demand that their flock
      refrain from using contraceptives while at the same time glorifying the sexual degenerate leaders of the Civil Rights Revolution.

    • fakeemail

      Speaking of the Catholic religion, I’m loving the new pope. Every day a new picture of him on his belly or kissing muslim feet. I waiting for the next shot of him kissing a big black butt. Cowardice disguised as virtue is pure comedy gold.

  • JohnEngelman

    Governments with strong monarchs and aristocracies did not survive the test of World War I. Every one of those governments was destroyed by the War.

    A country benefits when its most talented citizens flow easily into leading political and economic positions. An aristocracy interferes with the upward flow of talent from below.

    • IstvanIN

      The Allies were the ones who did not want a Hohenzollern or Hapsburg on the German, Austrian or Hungarian thrones. Charles IV actually had a good chance to retake the Hungarian throne, but Admiral Horthy was concerned about the Allies reaction and ultimately their interference.

    • Der Typ

      And that’s why the modern west is a land of milk and honey with 100% employment, increasing birthrates, and a general sense of well being.

      I’ll be glad when you and Paul Krugman fail the test of time. Thankfully I’m still young enough to probably see that happen.

      Isn’t it time to start up about Asians again?

      • JohnEngelman

        An increasing birthrate is a threat to “a general sense of well being.” The relationship between population and standard of living can be expressed with an equation:

        (natural resources x technology) / population = standard of living

        More people mean less of everything good to go around.

      • JohnEngelman

        Isn’t it time to start up about Asians again?

        – Der Typ

        Jared Taylor put it best in “Paved with Good Intentions.” Let me quote from him:


        Asians have faced fierce discrimination in America, but this has not stopped them from working hard and getting ahead. In fact, they have been so successful in “racist” America that whites have even begun to complain about Asian achievement….

        Throughout this period of constant prejudice and persecution, Chinese worked hard, saved their money, and built better lives for themselves. By the time they had full, legal standing in this country, many Chinese had incomes comparable to those of nativeborn whites. By 1969, Chinese as a group out eamed Italian, German, and even Anglo-Saxon Americans.

        During the 1960s, Chinatown was the part of San Francisco with the most unemployment and poverty, the highest rate of tuberculosis, the least education, and the most substandard housing. Nevertheless, in 1965, only five people of Chinese ancestry went to jail in the whole state of California.

        • MikeofAges

          Asians in the era since 1970 have not faced “fierce discrimination in American”. Some, depending on their national origin, have received affirmative action benefits from the day they arrived. I’ll agree that Asians largely have “worked hard” both in the economic and academic spheres. But “fierce discrimination”? I don’t think. In many instances they have been the ones doing the dishing, because native born wimps have been afraid to say “no” to them. This is something within my experience as I have actually done marketing to independent businesses in Santa Clara County. Asians in my experience would manipulate you in any way they wished and never stop until you got back in their face. When you did, their response was kind of “Oh, ok, I’ll stop Let’s go on with our business.” But only with you. The next Anglo (the term can apply here) still got the treatment. I don’t think Asians are malicious or malignant. They just have a way they do things, and they go on autopilot until someone stands in front of them. It’s expected and they don’t take it personally. But when it doesn’t happen they just keep on going.

          • White Mom in WDC

            My father was a systems analyst through the 80’s and 90’s. Had his own contracting business. When the Indians and Chinese and Pakis came along in the 90’s, he was not overly impressed and he stated that they really wre not smarter than anybody else. My dad made six figures, dies not have a college degree, and is a Dutch Calvinist. Myself, I just view Asians, specifically the Chinese, a hyper conformists. I also do not put a lot of stock in IQ. Really the test measures conformity, as most of its tasks ate language dependent, and blacks do poorly because they outrightly refuse to conform. I see the differences, attributes, and conflicts between the races as esoteric. Asians are hustlers. They don’t make good patriots

          • MikeofAges

            The guest workers which come here on H1-B and other work program visa frequently were sent here in groups by labor contractors in their home countries. There may be no way for their American employers to check on their credentials, experience and skill levels. Some were trained in programming and engineering “boot camps” or had other training simply not available to American workers if for no other reason than because their potential employers will not pay for it. This was particularly the case regarding the batabase program SAP, where there was no training available in the West outside of expensive licensed channels approved by the company which developed and sold the SAP software. Not so in India.

            If an American somehow acquired and applied with the same actual background as many hires from India and China, they would be summarily rejected as not adequately qualified.

            There is more here than meets they eye. Many people have said the same thing your father said about these people. And it’s about the issue of what Americans are willing to work for. If an American shows up willing to work for the “foreign” wage, they will not be trusted as an applicant in the greatest number of cases. In the world today, the employer has decided who they are going to hire before they see a resume or interview a single applicant. They are merely waiting for the applicant they want already to show up. They are wasting the time and money of everybody else they call in for an interview, but they interview them anyway to cover their asses in the event of an equal opportunity audit. That’s they way it is and that’s why it makes me sick when I hear about someone getting all giddy because they have scored an interview. In Coastal California anyway, it is considered a great triumph to get an interview even when the person pretty much knows they will not be hired. Sad. Sad and sick.

          • Bobby

            Again, absolutely true. White employees, considered sub par, compared to work visa immigrants that are obviously sub par, GET SCREWED. Personal comment: we have nothing but traitors representing the American citizens. I dare anyone to disprove this by citing some example of all the things Congress and the Senate have done in the last fifty years, that actually benefits the American citizenry, especially the European-American citizenry.

          • HaroldWesterling

            Test bias??? Your’re kidding right? If you “don’t put a lot of stock in IQ”, what on earth are you doing commenting on a discussion board like Amren? Are you not aware that one of the primary ideas that they are constantly putting forth is the fact the differences in IQ between the races are very real and very significant? Perhaps you would be more comfortable over on Free Republic…

          • Michael Ryan

            you’rewrong about iq and iq test you should look into it though i agree that the slight Asian advantage may not be enough to overcome some of their cultural baggage though it can have a different upside one thing is keep an eye on them they’re kind of like Jews without the altruism which is good and bad

          • NeanderthalDNA

            Yeah, beware selective application of standards. Certainly some people really don’t take tests well and all, and certainly there are other aspects than raw computational power. Certainly too many average IQ types raised right do achieve beyond their IQ’s.

            But I have to disagree about the IQ test. I think it accurately measures what we call “intelligence”, specifically raw computational power or more specifically perhaps computational velocity. IQ 100 may be able to figure out problem X with enough time, but such requires effort and we all have limited time, so the 150 IQ type simply performs faster and easier.

            Blacks have always debunked IQ tests because they don’t score well. Said they were culturally biased even though Japanese did well even before hard working scientists went back to the drawing board over and over to eliminate any cultural aspect from the tests.

            As a teacher I don’t know how many times I heard “So and so just doesn’t take tests well.” Smile, nod. Maybe. But maybe…so and so just ain’t too bright, Mom…

            How do you say that and keep your job in a non-union environment? Beware the truth…

          • Bobby

            Great post and utterly true. Though John Engleman’s points are relevant for an earlier time, that time is gone. Asians, I know for a fact, receive every kind of consideration when it comes to start up money for a business from the government.(evil whitey),etc. In fact, anyone who comes to the U.S. YESTERDAY, AND ISN’T WHITE, has more rights than any European-American born here, who has paid taxes, possibly served in the military, and on and on. This is no longer in dispute.

        • Mark L

          Thats true John, but they are still not our people. They are not your people. You live and breath today as a result of your direct ancestors which, I assume, are from NortWestern Europe. The Orientals are not your people. Sadly, you seem to hold little regard for own people as if they could have been any random set of people.

          • JohnEngelman

            My people are those I choose to like. I have never had bad experiences with Orientals. Some of my best male friends, and several women I have loved, have been Orientals.

        • NeanderthalDNA

          One of the tragedies of applying anything near White standards and experience to Blacks is the understandable intellectual push back when such fails, as it will every time with enough numbers.

          The Chinese WERE treated ugly, for instance, before the Civil Rights movement. I understand the typical Amrenners’ disgust with “somebody done somebody wrong” statements or explanations, especially the way such is used to browbeat and hector us. I understand and empathize.

          But despite the fact I feel no personal guilt nor impetus to give anyone money, I do worship the Truth, whatever that turns out to be, and certainly Whites, being Human…did some others wrong in the past. Some of us, many, most, who knows? Doesn’t matter though. That was then this is now.

          On the other hand I credit a certain degree of group intergenerational post traumatic stress. Up to a point, wherever that point lies.

          Take the English/Irish thing. Two groups of racially nearly identical populations, similar IQ, similar lifestyle. I can see how centuries of crude humiliation and discrimination could and I posit did, result in intergenerational group pathologies. Once removed from the oppressive situation, the Irish exploded upon the world and very quickly showed the English and all that they were indeed just as good, capable, and worthy. Despite early discrimination and bigotry, the Irish rapidly overcame and prospered.

          But the liblefty applies this dynamic foolishly to the Bantu and perhaps others. Especially in the case of the Congoid, however, this Boasian assumption is especially inappropriate.

          Throw in the monster known as Hitler and Boas and company have dominated such speculation and poisoned our civilization as a result of their arrogant ideologically motivated mischief.

    • jambi19

      “An aristocracy interferes with the upward flow of talent from below.” Yes. The same argument can be made about your ashkenazis in banking, entertainment, business, media, universities etc etc I guess certain aristocracies are acceptable in certain segments of societies and some are not…

      • JohnEngelman

        Jews in the United States earned their success in “banking, entertainment, business, media, universities etc etc.” despite antisemitic bigotry because of their superior talent.

        • Luca

          Jews also get ahead because of a strong obsessive-compulsive sense of tribal “La Raza”. Their motto could well be” For the Jews everything, outside of the Jews nothing”.

          • JohnEngelman

            I have never heard or read a Jew express that attitude. Some who post comments here do have that attitude about Nordic Gentiles.

          • Michael Ryan

            im not into the Jew bashing thing either maybe its cause im from Jew york city lol, but they really have been a huge huge benefit to the USA and yes they got paid well to. my biggest criticism is their tendency to liberalism and socialism which has caused a lot of problems. i do understand how some might resent their outsized influence but they didn’t steal it they were told it was for the achievers i would think kicking them out of our fantasy country would be really stupid but if their socialist tendencies cant be mended perhaps they should be non voting stockholders

  • JohnEngelman

    Although Benito Mussolini’s Fascist government glorified war, many military analysts claim that Italy was less prepared for World War II than World War I.


    General Ritter von Thoma was sent to North Africa in October 1940 to assess if German forces should be sent to assist the Italians. He recommended nothing less than four armored divisions for that theatre. He told Hitler: “One British soldier is better than twelve Italians. The Italians are good workers but they are not fighters. They don’t like noise.” (Source: B.H. Liddell Hart, The German General Talk, .1958, pp. 130-132).

    You might wish to read The Memoirs of Field-Marshal Kesselring (ISBN 0-89141-353-7). He commented on the half-heartedness of the Italian effort and their failure to make full use of their war potential. Discipline fell short, morale was low, and the Italian soldier had no enthusiasm for his profession. (pp.106-107).

    The Rommel Papers (Edited by Liddell Hart) (1953) is another source that refers to the poor state of the Italian Army. In Liddel Hart’s introduction to Chapter V (p. 91), he comments on an Italian army in North Africa designed for a colonial war against insurgent tribesmen. Rommel noted the Italian command was too sluggish for his liking (p.101) and he decided to take the command at the front into his own hands as soon as possible. The Ariete division possessed only 60 tanks of completely obsolte design, he said, that had once been used to chase the natives around Abyssinia.

    • David Ashton

      Italians are quite brave in defending their own land and some remarkable examples of individual rather than collective heroism were shown in both wars, but their heart was not in Mussolini’s failed external land-grab attempts at the outset of a war he previously tried to avert, and which hindered the German effort in Russia to the detriment of the Axis war effort in the long run. Better for them to have provided the German Army’s catering corp.

    • ImTellinYa

      I agree that they were less prepared for WWII then they were for WWI. In the first war they at least functioned as a player. They were the least of the “great powers” and in the end they had to be stiffened by the French, but the Italians were not a laughing stock in the first war. In the second war, they were laughably inept. They had a strong industrial sector, but it was relatively small and unable to produce even to its limited capacity. And for whatever reason, the Italian soldier was not the man his father was.

      But I think that none of the European powers were as prepared for WWII as they were for WWI. Before WWI all the major powers were at or near the top of their game economically, industrially and patriotically. But before WWII, none of them were. All had suffered from economic meltdown and political and social chaos. They had all rearmed very quickly, late and to some extent unwisely. Even the much vaunted German army was still horse drawn except for the panzer divisions, and their bombers were mediocre at best. They never fixed that problem. The French air force was tiny if you only count their modern fighters and bombers, and their tank force was badly conceived and doctrine was strictly 1918. The British had pretty lousy tanks, and terrible leadership for the most part. They were lucky that Supermarine and Hawker showed such initiative in designing the Spitfire and Hurricane, and that better leadership soon appeared.

      But one impression I get from my reading is that the British, French and Italians as soldiers just didn’t have their hearts in it. The Germans and Russians died in their millions and showed high battlefield competence throughout. I’m not saying that’s such a great thing, but there are times when you’ve got to do it. I think the massive losses of WWI really shook people in a fundamental way. It makes me feel strange just to think about it. The French military academy at St. Cyr has plaques showing combat deaths for each year’s class. For the class of 1914, the plaque simply says, “The Class of 1914.” The French covered themselves with glory in WWI in every way, but too many died. It is profoundly sad.

      You know, part of me agrees with Buchanan about British and French intervention in WWII, but a larger part of me just simply recoils from the entire subject of WWII. What a lose/lose situation that was (and WWI). It often occurs to me that I wish the German officer corps had shot Hitler in about 1938, and restored some sanity to that amazing country. I mean the officers knew Hitler hated them and was only using them until he could engineer HIS army. I swear, there are times when an enlightened military coupe is the best you can hope for.

      • Michael_C_Scott

        But a military coup was unthinkable to the German military officers, so they sat down in a train going over a cliff, and their trainwreck ended them in Russia.

        If there was ever a military coup in the US, I would fight until I was killed, and I hope some honest officers would have enough sense to launch nuclear missiles on Washinton DC. We don’t have military dictatorships here, and I doubt we will ever have more than one, even though the next civil war seems certain.

    • Michael_C_Scott

      I have written about this on a professional level. Italy was on no level ready for a Great Power War in 1940.

      Rommel was also promoted past his capability.

      • NeanderthalDNA

        I’ve played a very good real time strategic computer game called “Hearts of Iron”, which is certainly nothing more than a very detailed and complex simulation, but a very good one. A devotee to the underdog, I like playing the Italians.

        Every time I give it a rip and go along with the Germans more or less historically I get burned no matter how well I play. The grand campaign starts in ’36, so you have plenty of time to build up and try political shenanigans. The only time I did well was when I stayed out of the war until 42, 43 at the earliest, and even then the key is avoiding too close an alliance with the Germans.

        Which makes the game pretty solid in my estimation. Every time I take the Germans I admit to using ol’ Mussolini pretty much the way the real Germans did – except I always allocate more resources and troops to my ally than in the real war. Once the Suez gets taken and the ME overrun, it’s pretty much over for the allies. Then look to the USSR…

    • NeanderthalDNA

      Also looks like Hitler assured Mussolini that the war would not begin until 43 or 44. Apparently Benito took Adolf at his word. Oops…

      Now indeed the Japanese ground forces fought the war with mostly WW1 or interwar vintage equipment and as a result of their high morale and devotion made a good showing. Thus, had the Italians been similarly motivated perhaps they would have made a better showing.

      Who knows? Italian equipment, with a few exceptions like the Sparviero medium and naval bomber, was pretty dreadful and must not have inspired confidence on the part of the Italian soldier. Furthermore I wonder if after a point many Italians had serious second thoughts about their marriage to Nazi Germany and suspected they would never be more than a junior partner if that.

      • JohnEngelman

        When the Allies invaded Italy most Italians greeted the Allied soldiers as liberators. By every criteria the Fascist government of Italy must be judged as a failure.

        • David Ashton

          Not entirely – until the war.

  • LHathaway

    An inspiring article about an inspiring man. It’s kind of sad the racism sometimes displayed in the comments section on AmRen seems stuck in era of 1938. Then again I was caught up in the spirit of the article a little bit.

    • zimriel

      And when I go to Christian sites, people there don’t seem to like Muslims or atheists! Eek!

  • David Ashton

    There is much more to Evola than this book or its review indicates; e.g. his “occultism” and sexology.
    He is of interest to specialists, but his writings are neither central nor particularly helpful to modern mainstream race realism and the defense of western societies from mass-immigration.

    For good commentary on Italian “fascist intellectuals” I would recommend, above all, the books by A.James Gregor.

  • ImTellinYa

    Evola didn’t go far enough in his critique of Fascism. Fascism is just one more Left-leaning, “modern” politico/social movement that has the typically Leftist characteristics of intrusive, brutal government control of all facets of life, an agenda of insane social engineering, a need to deny “the people” all of its God-given rights in the name of its own power, and a system of lies and personality cults that are the antithesis of a healthy society.

    I agree with Evola that a monarchy/aristocracy/gentry government is the best as long as the elite understand their responsibilities and moral duties. Britain was one of the best-governed nations in history before they began widening the franchise in the late 19th century. I also agree that a democracy is nothing but an interlude leading to a Leftist tyranny; like Fascism or Communism. The Fascists tried to ape much of the style of the old regime that was discredited after WWI, but it comes of looking absurd and exaggerated. Their substance savors more of the Futurist or the Techocrat than the traditional.

    That being said, I would take Fascism over Communism any day. At least Fascism doesn’t insist on lowering EVERYONE to the lowest common denominator like Communism always does. At least Fascism doesn’t steal EVERYTHING for itself like Communism. But Fascism is really just a lot like what we have in the U.S. today, but with a difference that makes it as intolerable as Communism.

    Today are living under a racial/cultural Marxism that is dispossessing and oppressing Whites. This is evil and intolerable. Our very country is being invaded by hostile, third-world savages with the enthusiastic support of our government. That means that our government is now the enemy of its own country, and no longer possesses legitimate authority. The government is now just another malignant, criminal gang of thieves and traitors presided over by an affirmative-action parasite.

    That aside, classic Fascism is can only truly be described as right wing by an actual Communist. To a Communist, Fascism is right wing because it isn’t brutal or murderous or evil enough. That was why the Communists and Fascists in Europe hated each other so much. They were playing in the same moral universe, but each thought the other was a heretic in the secular religion of Man playing God using Government.

    • JohnEngelman

      The critical difference between Communism and Fascism is that those who were rich before the Communists took over lost their wealth after the Communists took over. Those who were rich before the Fascists took over remained rich after the Fascists took over.

      This is why most of Italy’s rich supported the Fascists, and why most of Germany’s rich supported the Nazis. This is also why it is legitimate to list Fascism and Nazism as right wing political movements.

      • Der Typ

        You’re a political genius. I wasted all this time reading about Fascism, Communism, the left, the right, etc.; not to mention if right and left are even valid political concepts. Well, all I needed was JohnEngelman to clear things up for me and all it took was 4 sentences. Rich people still alive = right wing. Rich people die = left wing. I think I’ll get a 100 on the test. Can you please tell me how I can recoup all that time I wasted when I should have just listened to your wisdom, o sage?

        • David Ashton

          These terms have become so ambiguous and dated that they should be jettisoned, at least as determinants of political philosophy and debate. It is better to look at ideas and policies with precision instead of prejudice. There is plenty of evidence that industrial workers in Germany in large measure supported National Socialism with considerable enthusiasm.

  • Lygeia

    Let’s not get so crazy because of our race problems that we advocate fascism, which is simply the government and corporations working together hand-in-glove without providing a check on the other’s power.

    • jane johnson

      hmmmmm, sure sounds familiar.

    • MikeofAges

      And giving each person a position, rights and liabilities based on their affiliation with a corporate entity, i.e. race, ethnic group, gender, school affiliation, professional or vocational guild, lodge membership and so on.

      The race-gender-sexual orientation-diversity lobby is pushing us into this condition of life because it is indifferent to any issue other than getting its own way at whatever cost. Usually, I am quick to rejoinder that that there is no “we”. But on this one there might be a “we” after all. I always recall that saying, “He who tries to ride tiger will end up the tiger’s belly.”

      Those of you of who think you are feeding us (whitey) to the tiger will end up in the tiger’s belly yourself. Don’t doubt it. The more you push to bring about “white” civilization’s downfall, the more you push the world toward a terminal condition. “Terminal”, in case you don’t get it, means that there is no conceivable force which can alter it, not in the world as we know it today.

  • guest003

    of course it can and it should. We should critique fascism, definitely, we have history to learn lessons from it. We should strongly support what was good and condemn and reject what was bad or not working for the good of the country or nation or people, that is for sure.
    Today political situation in the UK is indeed fascism , but left wing one.

  • Michael Alan Prock

    I think the dichotomy of Left vs. Right is unnecessarily emphasized and divisive.

    If a race and culture are to preserve itself it must embrace an ideology that values race and culture above the accumulation of wealth and protect itself from its concentration into hands that care only for money.

    Today, our whole society is bound in an internationalist vice of, for and by the banks. We are truly a conquered people. Conquered by an enemy the Founders knew very well:

    “And I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.”

    [Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, Monticello, 28 May 1816. Ford (Ford, Paul Leicester, ed. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1892-99. 10 vols.)]

    • Michael Ryan

      you should read something about banking not written by the john birch society even the Rothschild were pretty cool and gave us a lot same for the Medici, its not the banks as much as the governments ability to print money banks are actually a bit of a check on that power- yes things are out of whack but its the government spending is the real problem their debt creates so much liquidity the banks must put to use while also keeping …. well fractional reserve banking’s not that complicated but too involved for here suffice it too say you wouldn’t like the economy without it, we need to cut the govt in half starting with welfare and corporate welfare foreign aid well i could go on but if you commies want in on the race war fine ill just kill you later

  • Charles Edward Lincoln III

    I am a student of Ancient Greek and Roman Civilization and History, a passionate admirer of the music and writings of Richard Wagner, as well as a student of Anthropology, Biological and Cultural Evolution. I have also studied Fascism and its relationship to Communism all my life, and I frankly conclude that there is no such thing as “Fascism”, really, as a political ideology, for the single reason stated above under “Orientations,” to wit: “Fascism did not have a formally elucidated doctrine.” In Italy, in Germany, in France, in Spain, and even under the most noble of all Fascist leaders, Oswald Moseley in the United Kingdom, “Fascism” was never more than a poorly formulated reaction to Communism, and yet in all its manifestations, it was too much like, had too much in common with Soviet Communism ever really to succeed as a distinct and successful movement. The anti-Democratic impulse was fatal to Fascism. The strength of Fascism arose from pure nostalgic romanticism—only this and nothing more.
    At the root of all Indo-European Civilizations is a strong tendency towards forms of limited Republican Democracy, of Parliamentary Government. This is obvious in the histories of Athens, the Roman Republic, and in all the Germanic and Celtic tribes, though it may be strongest (ironically enough) among the Germans and Anglo-Saxons, whose whole social organization was based upon the “Thinga” (although this may be just “Indo-European” preserved most perfectly in later history among the Norse and Vikings.
    The rejection of the French Revolution (never mind the American Revolution) ignores the cultural imperative towards Freedom and Individual achievement, individual heroism, and individual responsibility apparent and inherent in all Indo-European myths. If we compare Odysseus, for example, with his Eastern Semitic Epic Counterpart in Gilgamesh (King of Uruk), we see that from the earliest times, the Indo-European people rejected dictatorship and absolute monarchies as ways of governance. It was what a ruler DID or DID NOT DO that made him a great hero. Gilgamesh’s “savage” friend Enkidu was much more like an individualist Indo-European Hero—and he was struck down by the Innana-Ishtar, the Semitic Goddess of Love, for failure to worship her and Obey…. Failure of Obedience to Divine Commandments is perhaps a key to understanding the divergence between Indo-European and Semitic Gods—and this is the skin of our teeth, the marrow of our bones—the origin of our Civilization. Christianity became acceptable to (and definitive of) the Western two thirds of the Indo-European world PRECISELY because Christ preached liberation from law, liberation from obedience, and recognized Individual Freedom of Will and Freedom of Choice, as the paths to Righteousness.
    This is our heritage, and it is why the Fascist Experiment Failed.
    The American Revolution was particularly atavistic in that it restored the three-part (Dumezilian) foundations of Indo-European Government between the Magical-Juridical Law (the Courts), the Physical force of Command (the Executive/Military Enforcers of the law), but empowered above all the Third Archaic Indo-European Segment of Society—the power of the food producers and the people who reproduce the human wealth of each polity.
    The French Revolution started with the reassertion of the Three Estates, but was rapidly overtaken by a radical minority who were forerunners of of Communism (led by the horribly ironically and prophetically named “Committee on Public Security”—the direct onomastic and terroristic ancestor of the Department of Homeland Security).
    Napoleon essentially restored the religious authority of the Church and the Parliamentary function as adjuncts his military might in the short-lived (because of excessive and premature ambition for world conquest), but otherwise essentially brilliant, Bonapartist Empire. I would suggest that any fans of Monarchy should look to Napoleon rather than the Bourbons as models of “how to organize and run an Empire.”
    I see no point whatsoever in trying to rescue the early 20th Century Fascist movements from their abject failure.
    Mussolini romantically (but impractically and perhaps rather ignorantly) looked and reached back to the Glories of Imperial Rome, but he had none of the practical sense that it was the Roman Republic which created the Empire, and the decline of the power of the (originally) Republican Senate, the abdication of parliamentary power to the Emperor’s “imperium”, which foreshadowed (and essentially caused) the fall of that same Empire.
    Hitler claimed that to understand the Third Reich, one had to understand the music and philosophy of Richard Wagner. I have devoted a large part of my life to listening to and reading Richard Wagner’s works, and I have concluded that Hitler’s Reich failed to understand that Love, almost a completely Christian notion of sacrificial love, underlay all of Wagner’s music, poetry, and prose, albeit that Wagner was heavily influenced by Buddhism which, aside from the adoption of the Swastika, hardly influenced the day-to-day policies of the Third Reich at all.
    Hitler would have erased all of traditional Germany, it’s architecture and its institutions, in constructing his thousand year Reich. This was not the Wagnerian way—this was pretty much the same plan as the Communists, except the Communists were much better organized and much more practical.
    True Conservative Romanticism for resuscitation of dying or even dead traditions and values requires the democratic process of argument, persuasion, and acceptance.
    It is that process on which we, if we are to be the truest conservatives of our time, should focus rather than falling for the false lure of the romanticist failures of Fascism.
    God Save the Indo-European People and their Traditions of individual freedom and collective parliamentary debate and decision-making, by through the Gospel and Love of Jesus Christ. That is what I would advocate.
    Fascism Failed because of its Kinship with Communism, and that’s why all the original American fans of Fascism (the Bushes and the Kennedys, for example) ultimately turned to World Communism, disguised as Corporate Socialism….

    • MikeofAges

      Can’t define fascism? Maybe not. “But” as was once said in another context. “we know it when we see it.” And you don’t want. You have to distinguish between a nationalist government in the era of mass politics and fascism. You may want nationalist government, but you don’t want fascism.

      What we are headed for more than anything is a terminal condition more resembling Orwell’s “1984”, with three power blocs exactly as Orwell described them: Oceania, Eurasia and East Asia. That means the Commonwealth and the United States, Russia and Europe, and the Greater East Asian sphere albeit under Chinese dominion. Possibly, Japan could remain allied with Oceania, connected economically but neutral geopolitically..

      • jambi19

        Orwellian you think? I consider the modern dystopia to be more Huxleyan myself. Certainly we can agree strong elements of both narratives manifest today.

        • Charles Edward Lincoln III

          Geopolitically I agree with MikeofAges that Orwell’s prediction of the maps of Oceania, Eurasia, and East Asia in 1984 has uncannily come into existence (almost too precisely—what did he know? Anything? Nothing? JUST coincidence? Can we still believe in haphazard coincidences in the political evolution of the world?. Orwell certainly was also correct about “Big Brother Watching You.” And to factor in another Orwell masterpiece, it’s definitely hard to tell the Ruling Stalinist Pigs from the purportedly Capitalist Animal Farmers these days….. they all definitely play the same game of cards at the same table.

          However, I would agree with Jambi19 that so far as morals and state of mind, we are much more in the Brave New World described by Aldous Huxley—we are fed a steady diet of sex and television and music to dull our senses and kill our minds, and (MOST PEOPLE) wouldn’t have it any other way….

          I don’t actually agree, however, that we “know Fascism when we see it.” Was Marshall Joseph Stalin really a Communist or was he just a particularly practical and successful version of what Hitler and Mussolini only aspired to be? Were Hitler and Mussolini, in fact, too human, too philosophically reflective and thoughtful to achieve what Stalin achieved by way of holding the geographically largest nation in the world in his hold through terror and eliminating all his enemies through murder and show trials?

          I really don’t think it’s possible to say that such a thing as “Fascism” as a real movement exists. Aaron Russo’s movie “From Freedom to Fascism” cast the modern United States as a Fascist Nation—but comparing the USA today with both Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy and Spain, I see little by way of genuine comparison.

          What I see in the United States is the near perfect realization of the Communist Manifest of February 1848 effectuated by both Democrats and Republicans with slightly different emphases….

          I see in our government and corporate economic system neither Hitler’s nor Mussolini’s nostalgia for the cultural traditions and values of the past nor any real cultural vision at all except to measure all things and all men with dollar signs and credit allowances…..

          • MikeofAges

            What do you think of the legal theory that disparate impact (i.e. affirmative action) applies anti-trust law to individuals as members of corporate entities (i.e. racial grouping) based on the idea whites collectively are a monopoly entity subjects subject onerous sanctions, restrictions and penalties other (racial and ethnic) entities are not subject to?

            The application of anti-trust law to issues beyond the realm of the conduct of actual corporate business entities is a serious issue. The appearance right now is that Christianity is being treated as a monopoly religion subject likewise to sanction, restrictions and penalties other religions are not subject too. By the way, if you are going to treat Christianity as a monopoly religion you have to treat Islam the same even though the number of its adherents in the United States is relatively small. See how far you get with that one.

            In the same vein, one also can discern that Roman Catholicism, and mainline Protestantism on account of their greater obsequy toward the disparate impact system are treated as less a monopoly entity than is Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christianity. One has to sense that there is something more behind the legal doctrine of disparate impact than the obvious — an effort to provide inclusion.

            If all you wanted to do was include, you could accomplish that without the excesses of judicial tyranny and outright punitive exclusion which are the hallmark of the affirmative action system.

            In a way, the different eras of race relations are the eras of American history. During each of them, the racial system has defined the life not only of the black African in America but of everybody in America.

            First you had, obviously, the slavery era. Then the abolition and reconstruction era (c. 1845-1877). The segregration era (1977-1954). A brief equality era (1954-1970) And the Affirmative Action era (1970-present).

            Of all of these eras, the potential for good race relations and the opportunity for the negro (the then current term) to live as a normal person in normal relations with other people was the greatest, not surprisingly, during the equality era. That was the direction things were moving. Until someone somewhere decided they should go in a different direction.

            I don’t buy the idea that mass upheavals in social relations come from street agitators. I don’t think that Hitler came to power because he was able to sway the masses to such a degree that they overwhelmed the German elites.MOre likely, it went the other way. I don’t think that malignant black separatism got the sway it did because of the power of a bunch of comic opera street thugs either.

          • Charles Edward Lincoln III

            I’m intrigued by some of your legal theories, especially applying antitrust law to non-commercial, non-corporate aspects of society…. The State as a socio-political “level of organization” has been described in cultural-evolutionary terms as “the monopoly of legitimate violence into one institutional structure”…. I for one believe the Second Amendment was designed precisely to BREAK that particular monopoly….just as I think that the First Amendment’s Anti-Establishment clause was largely designed to prevent “Acts of Uniformity” such as had existed in England since at least the reign of ER-I in 1559….

            By extension I believe that the 14th Amendment’s incorporation of the Bill of Rights to the States, (a constitutional theory which I do accept, although many conservatives do not) would prevent any state government from “occupying any of the fields” covered by the English “Uniform” Book of Common Prayer—which would include marriage, baptism/birth registry and education—but that’s just a radical theory I’ve been working on which might be consistent with yours based on antitrust principles.

      • Michael Ryan

        id say its much more like Huxleys brave new world, orwell sort of said the same thing about fascism its not defined but you sort of recognize it its most salient features are a cult of personality and corporate ism the demi freedom of the market [ free unless we say otherwise]- sort of like the obama administration even the humanist artwork./

        • Michael Ryan

          some other examples are Argentina under Peron Spain under Franco, its usually less racial than populist, anyway what we need is to restore the constitution remove the invaders revoke voting for women and non landholders

    • David Ashton

      The core of Oswald Mosley’s policy was a development of his parliamentary policy to end unemployment and capitalist crises, as well as to provide a patriotic alternative to communism. Consult his own words for accurate detail in his own books, such as “The Greater Britain” (1932), “Tomorrow We Live” (1937) and “Right or Wrong?” (1961). You would be interested in his essay on “Wagner and Shaw”, and his view that synthesis was needed between heroism and compassion.
      Working on a study of Indo-European/Semitic mythologies of the Divine Dragon-slayer, I much appreciate your contributions to these discussions.

      • Charles Edward Lincoln III

        Shaw for his part had written “the Perfect Wagnerite”—-Sir Oswald Mosley was clearly one of the highest minded and most respectable “failures” of the 20th century—you don’t mention his autobiography “My Life” of which I have an autographed copy…. had the privilege of corresponding with the great man when I was a teenager since my mother knew his wife…. Still, it remains a fact that he started out as a Laborite and entered Fascism from the Socialist angle rather than (really) any conservative position. In his later life he favored the European Community and European Unification, about which I could never agree, even though I understood his reasoning and his motives for it. Lots of the Old Aristocracy of Europe seems to have become enamoured of European Unity (look at the last of the Hapsburg line, for instance…. Charles and Otto). I think the adoption of the Euro was a terrible mistake and I hope Britain never joins…. but I’ve gotten off the subject….

        And I daresay most readers here would be even a little bit more put off by excessively deep or lengthy digressions into comparative mythology but if you want to talk Gilgamesh, Tiamat, Marduk and such compared to Odysseus and Sigurd/Siegfried or even St. George you could write me privately at [email protected].

        (Just fair warning: spammers and trolls who try to abuse this publication of a private e-mail will be hunted down and put to death by the most excruciating means imaginable….)

        • David Ashton

          Very pushed for time at present (Engelman is a brief relaxation!) but I will get in touch in due course on both Mosley and Marduk.

    • Michael Ryan

      think iceland has longest democracy 1000 years and going

      • David Ashton

        Homogeneous north European population with a high average IQ.

        • How come they went Bankrupt? No Jews or lazy blacks to blame…

          • David Ashton

            I do not blame the Jews or Blacks for Iceland’s banking problem. Are you suggesting that I have ever done so or implying it? If so, perhaps you could withdraw the innuendo with an apology. What is one now allowed to say about racial intelligence and/or homogeneity without being suspected of antisemitism or accused of it? I was referring to the nature of its democracy; also the size of the population counts.
            Iceland has recovered quite well from its externally caused bank crisis.

      • Charles Edward Lincoln III

        I’m fairly sure that’s either right or about as close to right as we’re going to get, so far as the continuous operation of a single unbroken and regularly operating institution goes. But parliamentary gatherings on both the “national” or tribal level (“things”/”thinga”) and local level (“folkmoots”) were characteristic of all the Viking/Northwestern Germanic Peoples, including the Saxons’. All of the Angle and Saxon Kingdoms of England prior to King Alfred the Great had Witans, or Witenagemots, and while these were not precisely continuous (because of the Conquest, “1066 and all that”) with the Mediaeval Anglo-Norman Parliament, the tradition of democracy runs deep in our Anglo-Saxon heritage…. But in all fairness, historically speaking, the Athenian Democracy of the Agora and the Roman Republican form of government (the Roman Monarchy being more mythological than historical) predated the earliest documented “things” or “folkmoots” by a thousand years.

    • What about the failure of democracy?

      • Mister_Deutsch

        Democracy has always been a failure, it was considered as such by Plutarch and Suetonius.

        Demos – in the ancient world meant the same thing as a Nietsche’s concept of ‘vulgar’ or ‘bad’.

        • Course the difference between ‘for the people’ and ‘by the people’ only superficially appears to disappear when you consider public opinion in a democracy is something heavily influenced by the few anyway. The question being as to who benefits from the monopoly over opinion.

          The media revolution started with chapbooks and the like and continued to the monopolies of today’s media giants. At every step towards the freedom of the press, it can be said to have best suited those of them who own a press. Yet people still think of it as a good thing and not as some means of enslavement, or at least rhetoric invented to justify monopoly. It sort of proves the Unabomber right about modern society, really.

          • Mister_Deutsch

            You and I are godly entities living in mass sewer of mentally disturbed filth. I often feel the urge to spray these animals [the masses] with lysol or something.

            The Jew-tube really annoys me more than anything.

            Mass society run by the press = reduction to the L.C.D.

            Aristocracy is the only form of governance which makes any sense to me. You need to have upward pressure on the social body to encourage healthy instincts and discourage stagnation and degeneracy.

            A good example, which I am fond of bringing up is how well the baby boomer generation was treated, especially in America by its governmental institutions. The masses need to be held in check by aristocrats, or else they will destroy [unconsciously] the engine of their own civilization.

    • Mister_Deutsch

      Thanks for this post, I appreciate your position although I am anti-Christian myself.

  • antiallanbloom

    This reminds me of an ivory tower elitist named Allan Bloom, author of Closing of the American Mind.

  • LHathaway

    “For reasons of personal psychology many posters here seem unwilling to condemn the business community”.

    Tell us more.

  • David Ashton

    “Democratic government…offers the greatest opportunities for human happiness, if only the mass of human individuals within the democracy is sound in body and mind…. Progressive biological deterioration of the people leads inevitably to anarchy and dictatorships.” – Earnest A. Hooton, anthropologist and criminologist (1939).

    • Define ‘sound in mind’.

      This quote reminds me of Nietzsche’s observation that domestication is breeding sickness into animals. The personality traits of heroes naturally threaten the peace of a placid, democratic herd which is what Hooton clearly feared.

  • Wolf Larson

    Evola saw fascism as a wrong step in the right direction. It was a start, an authentic counter-revolutionary movement, but certainly the end of any thing.

  • Mike Lane

    This is a very fascinating article, and informative. I’ve read a little of Evola’s work, and can’t say I disagree with him too much, except for his heavy use of “occultism”/mysticism and strong views supporting an aristocracy. Personally I think America (or perhaps a new state in North America) should take on a government similar to the American Republic in the early days before progressivism, relying on aristocratic concepts, but not an absolute or Traditionalist aristocracy as Evola champions.

    My concern, though, is American Renaissance should stick to its traditional views concerning race- that is, purely American conceptions, not the old European politics which tend to lean in the direction of anti-republic, mystical, etc. There are plenty of websites that go into those depths, and going down that road will only put AmRen at a level that will likely discredit it.

  • I’d say Evola is highly overrated, especially as a political “thinker” (if he ever was one). I’ve read a few of his books (on Hermetic tradition, on yoga, on “modern world” etc.). Essentially, he’s confused & politically naive, not unlike some of his acquaintances with much higher (and deservedly so) stature- for instance Mircea Eliade, and as a more popular writer, Joseph Campbell. These were scholars of ancient esotheria, centered around Carl Gustav Jung & Eranos Jahrbuch ( although not his parrots, as some would like to present them). Other prominent scholars included Henry Corbin, Gershom Scholem, Hans Jonas and a few others. Also, Evola was in contact with neo-traditionalists who mainly ended up as converts to Islamic Sufism (Rene Guenon, Martin Lings, Titus Burckhardt).

    This article has much to say about Evola & anti-Semitism, but J*ws were not Evola’s primary concern. He, along with Eliade, was rather cosmopolitan & fascinated with esoteric practices of alchemy, yoga and similar stuff- in a nutshell, it was the quest for paranormal powers as exemplified in tales on master magicians, shamans, energy yoga adepts etc. So far so good, but- we know now ( yogis, Tibetans, whatnot have been present in the West for decades)- that much of it is a pure legend. If a man idolized dark skinned Hindu yogis, he can hardly be accused of racism in a conventional sense.

    But, what about politics ?

    Unfortunately, Evola’s world-view cannot be separated from his wacky & dated occultism. Virtually all of his ideas are either obsolete or simply nutty. For instance- divine right of kings. This was a real political stuff until 16th-17th centuries & various revolutions, especially in the British Isles & the Netherlands. Aristocracy ? Hereditary aristocracy is finished as a genuine political power, and “spiritual aristocracy” is impossible- it always ends as an ideological one party rule, invested with totalitarian power (Fascists, Nazis, Communists).

    I could go on & one, but, IMO, the search for future form of functional government cannot rely on such dated & obscurantist ideas. If we are to speculate, then I’d say we should try science fiction, not fantasy; future, not past; Asimov & Clarke, not Tolkien- if you know what I mean.

    • MikeofAges

      The idea of hereditary aristocracy is not out of date as a concept because it provides a point of reference to which compare the nouveau riche artistocratic pretenders of today. No one wants back the hereditary titled aristocracy except those who stand who inherit one, The evanescent fllttings of the pretenders — movie stars and music divas, undereducated socialites and cyber-tycoons — however call for a perspective. Aristocracy had it best, and its best were very excellent.

      These, by their very definition, have no best. Because when one of them becomes “best”, they cease to be what they began as. And when one of them reaches to be best and fails, he (or she) becomes a buffoon.

      And we don’t know what you mean, not most of the people around here. The best sci fi writers were interesting and provocative. But none provide the overarching moral framework social conservatives believe is necessary to protect human beings from the danger inherent in our mortal life. Tolkien does.

      • Evola was writing & thinking about various things, but political ideology is the issue of the article. Having said that- Evola’s thought has little to offer simply because his ideas about government, politics etc. are obscurantist fantasies. For instance, Jung, Eliade (and Evola) thought that right-wing revolution (Fascist, Nazi, whatever) would bring about a spiritual national rebirth. What the hell is this ? Actually, their ideas were utterly confusing: the option A was that their nations (Italian, German, Romanian,..) will pass through a spiritual transformation that will result in… what ? They couldn’t articulate what this paradise on earth would look like. Maybe people would become less petty, more “spiritual” (i.e., more “otherworldly”), etc. etc. These are unfounded fantasies, and it is astonishing that individuals who claimed they knew much about human nature could have harbored such delusions. The option B was rule by a “spiritual” elite, essentially a theocracy. This one can be realized, but only as a totalitarian one party rule. There was nothing “spiritual” about Communist Party members, or NSDAP, let alone SS. The SS was the elite of such projected society, but all these guys (Evola, Jung, Campbell, Eliade,..) were- at least initially- blinded to the fact that ruling elite consisted of thugs, murderers & criminals – and not of some semi-enlightened charismatic sages. What you wrote about hereditary wealth & entertainment has no bearing on the topic- these people do not have “sanction from above” as old aristocracy did have in, say, 1400s; moreover, they don’t rule countries, although plutocratic influences are evident throughout the West, in, say, Russia, it’s Putin who calls the shots, not any financial oligarch. Actually, the entire topic is not very well conceived: Julius Evola’s political masterwork is “Revolt against the Modern World”. Here we are in the heart of obscurantism. It’s a revolt stemming from occult medieval fantasies refurbished & adapted, or made palatable to the lazy & uncritical modern mind. But Evola’s mind was not modern; his ignorance about economics, technology, mass psychology etc. was dismal; he simply didn’t understand the modern world. You cannot fight tanks with arrows; but you can with guided missiles -if you know what I mean.

        • David Ashton

          Without Utopian fantasy, what is your conception of a society better than we have at present, and how we might get to it?

          • Science & reason are on our side. We cannot- and won’t- go back to Utopian fantasies, whether left or right (Communism, Fascism). Lefty-liberal ideologies (mass immigration, white guilt tripping, idolization of 3rd worlders, promotion of miscegenation,..) are essentially belated ideological matrices resulting from revulsion at Nazi atrocities & vulgar racist ideologies, not dissimilar from the “official” state of mind in 1770s France which was actually more pertinent to early 1600s. Common White European enmity towards foreign & unassimilable (racially, religiously, culturally) immigrant masses is well solidified; sciences (genetics, social psychology, cognitive psychology, neuroscience, sociology, ..) clearly show that some kind of social Darwinism is necessary for survival. Now, science is on the side of White preeminence, from IQ to personality tests, and against status quo- as it has been against status quo of divine monarchy and “blue blood” nonsense centuries ago. Willy-nilly it must of necessity become against miscegenation with Bantus, against lefty-liberal fantasies, against multiculturalism & idiocracy. And modern White European politics should capitalize on modern science to harness it to destruct liberal suicidal lunacy, which requires clear thinking and fusion of already existent knowledge from sociology, criminology, genetics, neuroscience, cultural anthropology, history,.. in a concentrated elixir of White survival (and ultimately triumphant) strategy. Of course, the prerequisite is the harmonious synthesis of national spirit (nation states) and pan-European cooperation (not a bureaucratic black hole like EU). People just don’t believe in eschatological prophecies & the likes of Evola are doomed on a global scale. And, try as they may, they can’t convince Swedes, Italians or British that Blacks, Pakistanis or Arabs are good news. It’s time for a concentrated intellectual, political & economic effort to do away with the existing liberal dogmas. With economic troubles, it should be easier than 20-30 years ago.

          • David Ashton

            Agree 95%.
            Thanks for the answer.

  • I found the following article on fascism interesting:

  • Transpower

    This article is very foreign to my Objectivist/Libertarian viewpoint. The real question is: what is the optimal State? I say it’s a strictly-limited Constitutional Republic, with laissez-faire capitalism, and a strict meritocracy. This is the creed of the “earned,” not the “unearned.” Under such conditions, men of ability will thrive, and everyone gets their “just desserts.” The author above seems to be very authoritarian and seems to think that the State should be a mystical force above everything else.

    • David Ashton

      Does your state have borders, a shared language or common culture, and a tax-funded defense system?

      • Transpower

        Yes, the minimal state would have borders protected by the military. And yes there would be a shared language and culture.

        • David Ashton

          Thank you for clarification.

          Now another question: let us suppose that completely free market in the addictive brain poisons called “drugs” caused enormous social chaos in family breakdown, medical problems, contract violation, public accidents and crime, would the minarchy intervene? Despite using amphetamines, Ayn Rand condemned as a particular obscene evil the deliberate use of drugs to induce insanity, but there could come a point when individual choice occurred on such a scale that a society would be almost unbearable for rational persons to try to live. Plato’s case for wisdom in government remains.

        • NM156

          Good for you. I was ready to pounce. No open-borders nitwit at Reason should be ever again allowed to blabber on like a drugged baboon without being kept in check by non-ironic reason. By the way, Target etc. are ChinaMart replicants to one degree or another, and their competition means nothing in the aggregate to destroyed US industry that had a bright future until trade restrictions were abandoned.

    • IstvanIN

      A limited constitutional republic sounds like a good idea. I have
      always felt our founding fathers were both brilliant and forward
      thinking, as well as good intentioned. We could refine the form of
      government they left us and avoid some of the mistakes they made, such
      as allowing slavery. That being said:

      1) Laissez-faire
      capitalism? No controls? We just let the Walmarts of the world crush
      all competition? Some controls are good. I am more of a, I suppose,
      Teddy Roosevelt type capitalist. On the other hand some monopolies are
      both good and natural, and with proper pubic oversight can provide for
      both the common good and keep investors happy. Example: The Bell System.

      A strict meritocracy? In the civil service, that is a good idea, in
      the private sector, I disagree. Are you saying I should have to hire
      the best man for the job or can I pick my son-in-law if I so choose? Who
      decides? I suppose if it is my business I would get to choose, I hope.

      The creed of the “earned” and the “unearned”: what does that mean? Does
      that mean the government gets to take all my stuff after I die? Can I
      earn so much that my grandchildren get to be trust-fund babies, or would
      that be forbidden, because they didn’t earn it? As someone who has
      never been jealous of those who were born with more than me, have more
      than me, and will die with tons more than me, I have always seen
      confiscatory estate taxes, in fact any estate taxes, to be nothing more
      than communism. Yes, you can be born on the wrong side of the tracks
      and still not covet other people’s stuff.

      4) Everyone else get
      their “just deserts”? Yikes, I am no fan of the welfare state, but how
      far do you want to go? No public education? No public sewers and water
      systems? How about the disabled? I find the idea that the mentally ill
      have the “right” to wonder homeless on the streets rather than being
      institutionalized abhorrent.

      I do not believe in authoritarianism but we do need rules to live by. We need structure. A free-for-all would be a disaster!

      • Transpower

        IsIvanIN: good response. I’ll clarify. 1) The only “controls” for laissez-faire capitalism are laws against the initiation of force, theft, and fraud. Walmart is run very well, and it does have competition from Target and K-Mart. Teddy Roosevelt was a Progressive–a believer in Big Government. I’m happy that the Bell System was finally broken up–look at the amazing competition we now have in that industry. 2) You should be able to hire anyone you want in the private sector, but if you don’t hire the best than you will lose out to those who do! 3) Of course, you should be able to dispose of your wealth in any manner you choose. But your progeny do not get any moral credit from their inheritance–it is what they do with it which counts. 4) No welfare state; the poor will be taken care of by charity. Education, public sewers, and water systems would all be privatized, and thus run very efficiently; the government would just be a referee, not a player, to make sure there is no force, theft, or fraud. The structure is provided by a strictly-limited Constitutional Republic: the police, the courts, the military, a part-time legislature, and an executive department. I am a minarchist, not an anarchist!

  • LHathaway

    A friend of mine had another friend whose father was a professor at Kent State. After the professor died, I was given two books of his. One was Allen Bloom’s Closing of the American mind, the other was Reappraisals of Fascism. Both books had a few newsclippings stuck in them as if the professor had attended some of the speaking tour events. The book about the history and political connections of Fascism was genuinely a scholarly book. Fascist thought was not confined to Germany and Italy.

  • If you want some serious writers on Fascism, try Ernst Nolte (not the actor) & other right-wing intellectuals involved in Historikerstreit:

    And read a rather correct Wiki article on Evola: This should dispel many misunderstandings.

  • frederickdixon

    Evola’s “radical traditionalism” is certainly popular on today’s radical right, but it seems to me to be little more than an intellectualization of Reaction which received its quietus in a succession of catastrophic events in 1789, 1848 and 1917. Nor is it in accord with Fascism which, far from being reactionary, aimed to create a “new man in a new world” a concept which it owed to Nietzsche, whose ideas are logically incompatible with those of Evola.
    Evola’s ideas are much more in tune with the “fascism” of Franco in Spain or Antonescu in Roumania – which were not really fascisms at all, but ultra-conservative autocracies in fascist fancy dress.

  • NC Mountain Man

    Good article.

    If you consider the arguments here critically, it basically demonstrates how Fascism is Conservative and how Nazism/Nationalsozialismus is ultimately Marxist. If we consider it is Communism that merely takes race into account, in a “white welfarism” that employs populist ideals (Hitlerism is essentially the subverted identity of whites under a single personage, inconsistent with historical white identity as expressed through a state rather than a populist Revisionist Marxist leader such as Hitler. As the article says). —(I am not alone in pointing out the Revisionist Marxist nature of Nazism. There wouldn’t be a basis for Nazism without a Karl Marx).

    Fascism under Mussolini is arguably more more natural. It is quite correct to make a distinction between Fascism, and the “Social” institution the Nazis made post-1943, which was not especially Fascist, but rather a Nazification of Fascist ideals, essentially giving Italian Fascism more of a Marxist bent.

    It shouldn’t be surprising that before Mussolini was politically, intellectually–and even in rhetoric–subdued by Hitler, Mussolini actually opposed things such as the Anschluss. The Austrofascists under Engelbert Dolfuss in Austria were much more consistent with Fascism than with the Revisionist Marxists which would depose the independence of that Austrian vitality and then crush the opposition–all due to the extremely populist and unnatural Hitlerianism of the time. Mussolini had, at the time, mourned the loss of an ally in Austria that was a true Fascist (who also had significant Fascist support amongst Austrian Jews).
    If you think little is known about Mussolini and true Fascism, even less is often known about the only true Germanic Fascism, which was Austrofascism.

    I think that in order to properly discuss Fascism’s view on race, we must in fact regard the Nazi’s view of “slave morality.” Although Nazis called Christianity slavery, and the Sermon on the Mount the first Bolshevik gathering, Italians learned that instead of bending people to your will in some sort of Marxist “will to power” (also echoed in Nazi ideas of “Triumph des Willens”), as would be typical of Marxists, the Italians found it much more efficacious to understand that appealing to the populace on a social level is much different if you take a conservative approach.

    I’m sure this is all quite confusing to liberals though. I notice they often don’t recognize a difference between Nazism and Fascism. Or just call them all “anti-semitic” (quite the contrary, I know pro-White Fascists who do happen to be Jews. Unlikely that they will be given a voice in media though. And as someone who does have a respect/admiration for Mussolini, I also am a Judeophile. And lover of Italy), as if they actually are the same thing, and Nazism isn’t actually more related to the Revisionist Marxist and Marxist movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

    Just like the Nazis, the liberal’s own form of cultural Marxism prevents them from making distinctions of philosophical/political topics that contradict their own ‘egalitarian’ desire to control and subvert, often using the same populist/Hitlerian type methods. Both use ideas of equality to create an unnatural hierarchy. Your average liberal has not thought too deeply about the issue though. And unfortunately, even many self-labelled White Conservatives will believe Neo-Nazism is consistent with what it really means to be a non-Marxist White. And they are also deceived.

    But yes… Good article.

    • David Ashton

      Hitler was a particular sort of Social Darwinist who fitted into his ideological system the misguided idea that the Jews were an incorrigibly parasitic people. He identified “Marxism” with anti-evolutionary egalitarianism. He was also a German nationalist, whose geopolitical ambitions combined with military force contributed to his undoing. He understood propaganda among his own people, but did not fully appreciate the effect of his actions on the views of others. He was the 20th century’s Shakespearean “tragic hero” whose combination of brilliant gifts with ruthless fanaticism brought the opposite outcome that his supporters wanted, and left an adverse legacy from which we are all suffering in many different ways.

  • Michael Ryan

    well guys i got no problem with white power or supremacy- whatever, but this fascism talk is stupid, just look at that photo of Mussolini what an idiot, Hitler too but better uniforms.great PR still , a total geek vegetarian artist . I’M a man I dont follow I lead if some guy says hes the boss i think how to kill him and be the boss, probably more like me- big mess. but. if I hear hey we all voted this guy in for a while if youre interested you can run next time now i think i got to kill all these guys to be boss too much work.. look democracy has its problems but nothing a little ethnic cleansing cant solve.

  • Michael Ryan

    And stop bashing the church unless youre catholic its none of your business or i could talk about your Shiite snake handling rednecks

  • Drew

    It seems to me in the article and in the comments there is an almost laborious omission of
    any regard to the thought, clarifications, and syntheses of Oswald Mosley. He commented
    on this matter both before and afer World War II–and from a cultural footing that we as
    Americans very much share.

    • David Ashton

      Yes, indeed. He also noted: “Terminology and prejudice count for too much in these matters”.
      And as Ezra Pound said, “You have the right to examine my ideas ONE AT A TIME.”

  • ProWhite son of Jacob

    As a Jew, I identify strongly with this position of “spiritual race” that Evola espouses.

    When Abraham found God, Abraham wasn’t a “Hebrew.” He was a Sumerian/Akkadian. God didn’t alter Abraham’s Sumerian genes when he founded the Hebrew race/people through him, God changed his soul. Being Hebrew is therefore a spiritual race, principally… Typically, ones biology does not change from Sumerian to a different race upon finding God. (Neither does the Torah teach such a thing).

    In many Jewish circles, it is understood that there is a hereditary part of the soul. Another example of this is of course the ethnic tribes. Jacob wasn’t necessarily genetically distinct from Abraham/Sumerians, and nor were his children genetically distinct from him… And yet his sons branched off into tribes with different spiritual natures; based on heredity. I realize that isn’t actually scientific, but this is how the teaching goes. It doesn’t have to be scientific anyway, because ideas about the soul are often outside the realm of science (or at least, so far… It remains to be seen what Quantum Physicists will discover in the brain). —(Although I should add only Yhvh can actually create spiritual races, whereby perhaps evolution can produce biological races).

    Ruth, who converted, changed her soul via conversion. Her children inherited this portion of her spirituality, regardless of whatever genes they gained from her. It doesn’t matter because God changes the soul. I do tend to hold to the notion that the lineage is still relevant in the transmission of soul (David’s and Solomon’s souls were related. Moreover “Spiritual race” is the original basis of divine monarchy and heredity). But it is not independent of the belief and moral choices we make in life. We can lose the soul our parents gave us (and their parents had given them, and so forth, from thousands of years ago). Similar to how bad Kings in ancient times lost their right to rule Judea and Israel by their loss of God within them (just a way of describing “soul”).

    I have also considered the argument that perhaps the spiritual race is just an invented “construct” that has maintained our existence for a long time… Whereby if we had defined ourselves as purely a race in the genetic/biological sense, we would have ceased to exist in some instances. But we kept Jacob’s soul, and maintained what it means to be Israelite (some of us haven’t, maybe. But those are the anti-White ones that abandoned the soul God gave them. Just my opinion). And this is why I perfectly understand what Evola means when he is talking about the “new Italian,” in Fascism. It doesn’t discredit genes or biological race realism at all, rather it gives it an ethereal significance.


    I realize none of this actually falls into the topic of race realism (although I am certainly a [biological] race realist. Jared Taylor has been wrong on virtually nothing… Or just nothing at all, now that I consider it), because it’s difficult to test something only God understands. Nevertheless I wanted to throw in something I thought was relevant to Evola’s musings and insight.

    • This is Hebrew Kabbalah, but you guys are wrong about spiritual exclusivity- only J*ws can have non-perishable spiritual soul neshamah/chaya/yechidah, not Gentiles. That’s some kind of spiritual racism. True, there are doctrines- mainly Theosophists & Rosicrucians, who claim that there are “group souls” (say, J*wish) & that various souls belonging to a group have specific “hues”, so to speak, which distinguishes them from other-say- “ethnic souls” (Norwegian as different from Italian, at least between incarnations). Just- Hebrew Kabbalah is, in this respect, simply completely at odds with other spiritual traditions (Greek Orphism, Gnostic Christianity, Advaita Vedanta, Vajrayana Buddhism, neo-Taoism, Islamic Sufism,..). All humans have, according to them, indestructible selves which are not ethno-religiously circumscribed; just, they may have been influenced by the religious culture when on earth. So much for esoterica.

      • ProWhite son of Jacob

        I wasn’t talking about the esoteric, unless your view is that the entire Torah is esoteric (which is true, but keep in mind the Torah is what I was specifically referencing). If you notice, I’m not referencing any Mishnah, I’m just talking about what God said and what it means to be descended from Israel, called in the Torah, “the son of God.”

        I personally believe Christians (I disregard most other Gentiles) as misled–as I’m sure you would believe I am misled–but I also believe we share a similar soul. One can not read and study the Torah–even if they added Gospels to it–without having your soul altered. Therefore, ultimately,

        True heathens and people of “Gehena,” can not possibly be Christians. Because a true heathen doesn’t adopt the Torah or practice circumcision, and believe in the covenant (even if they eat pork, which the creator forbid).

        Therefore, I believe the word “Gentile”–a Latinization of the Hebrew word which appears in the original text, “Goyim;” literally meaning nations–is largely irrelevant today.

        I also wasn’t talking about ethno-religiously described selves. The soul isn’t ethno-religious. Obviously, none of this can be proved empirically with mathematical evidence… But it’s more a testament to the fact that, at the very least, we believed in our soul and then we actualized it. Because of faith in God (which, admittedly, not all Jews have… But I’m not referencing them). God is very much an absolute truth, in my mind though. Maybe he is impersonal now, as our Prophets receive fewer visions and inspiration, but there is always that creativity which made the universe (now THAT’S bordering on the esoteric, for you).

        However, if you are interested in the esoteric, which actually has little to nothing to do with the heredity of souls, I recommend Newton. (Soul heredity is, if anything, a blatant and superficially obvious fact in the Torah). I like Sir Isaac Newton on the topic because of his keen insight. And yes, little known fact, Isaac Newton wrote more on Kabbalah than he did on gravity and his development of Calculus. Quite a prolific character. If we are going to argue this from the standpoint of Hebrew Kabbalah and the esoteric, then Newton’s soul would have acquired these similar properties given by God. But be that as it may, Newton’s esoteric beliefs are worth review.

        Through God we learn the secrets of the universe.

        • No, I’m not an atheist; J*ws is because Disqus frequently censors the name if properly spelled (that’s why other variants like Jooz are sometimes used). What you’re saying is essentially Hebrew Kabbalah: J*ws have additional “layers” or the “soul” (define it as you wish) thanks to the study of the Torah & the rest. OK- I don’t believe in that. Also, I don’t believe that Christians are misguided, or that ancient Greeks (“pagans”) had been either wrong or deluded, and this applies to other religions- and irreligion, too.

          If there is an afterlife- let’s suppose- I’m inclined to think that what matters most is what you’ve done, not what you’ve believed in. Of course, that’s just my opinion. I may be wrong.

          • David Ashton

            Will it be too late if and when you find out?

          • I tend to symphatize with saying falsely ascribed to Marcus Aurelius: “Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.”

          • ProWhite son of Jacob

            All good points. It is indeed worth pointing out that behavior is of utmost importance. I also often dislike religious titles simply because members of religions often upset me… At times I think they are unGodly, whether they believe in God or not. Which is, ultimately, the root of the matter. If you you are Godly in your conviction, then surely you are better than any bad person that professed faith in God. I can think of numerous people in history that believed in God, but were also Godless. God didn’t hold them in high esteem. Or not at all. So I like the saying you quoted, attributed to Marcus Aurelius. Righteous living is of utmost importance.

            I didn’t mean to be insensitive to polytheists though. I don’t mind Hindus. Usually any Hindu I’ve met is a peaceful person just trying to live as they have for thousands of years, in resistance of Muslims who often attack them. And I like Greek and Egyptian literature… Babylonian writings too (I try not to be a chauvinist). We were all polytheists at one time anyway.

            I don’t know if Jews have “layers” in their soul due to Torah study. Certainly, not all have studied Torah and fewer still have put its principles in practice, demonstrating their actual knowledge of Torah and understanding of God… Which seems to be the way of the world. But I do know that even if the soul weren’t real, it exists because of the belief in it. Getting back to Evola, I think there is something to be said for the effectiveness of “spiritual racism.” With a strictly biological definition, we would have lost our identity long ago.
            Although it does raise the question, how is anyone to judge the caliber of a soul? Only God can do that. Or should do that. I don’t feel comfortable with pompous Jews judging others with criteria they don’t fully understand any more than I feel comfortable with pompous others judging us with criteria they don’t fully understand. So all I can say is that I think there is a soul, and I think we can develop it, and then pass it on to children, and this is what Jewish identity is (and by the same token, some lost this soul [although they could perhaps regain it]. I know of unGodly Kohanim, for example. Kohanim are supposed to be the priestly class. However, I wouldn’t trust all of them with this position above my personage). Other than that, I prefer not to speculate too much.

          • NeanderthalDNA

            I understand why many Jews have been attracted to the nationless concepts of the left. Makes perfect sense considering history. Unfortunate. I detest Jew baiting.

            Got me a Sephardic way back in the woodpile. Old Southern Jews, merchants and professionals who were among the first residents of the Holy City of Charleston. Not that a splish splash of blood makes me Jewish, nor that I had different attitudes before. My Scottish gramps got along with the local Jewish families well, did business with on a regular basis, held a high opinion of them. Perhaps something to do with mutually held stereotypes regarding Scot and Jew, lol…

            Regardless I welcome White Jews to the struggle. Hope you and those like you can awaken more as I and folk like me try to inject some perspective into the movement regarding the issue.

          • ProWhite son of Jacob

            For my part, I do try to convince other Jews (except for the Marxists… I don’t even bother). Obviously, it’s difficult to be too influential, because with views like mine I am unlikely to land a journalism job at MSNBC…
            Like them, I too grew up hearing the fallacy that non-Jewish nationalism leads to nazism. Is that true? No. So why should I believe it? There have been numerous nationalists and patriots in history. Napoleon was a nationalist and he was quite favorable to Jews.
            But it is important to impress that White civilization has been the most important development on this planet. Am I going to pretend that we would know what we know about the universe, technology, and the nature of ourselves– if left to the discretion of Africa?

            There is less genetic differentiation between subspecies of owl than between many subspecies of homo sapiens. Owls can be quite different in ability, so why wouldn’t this follow for humans? Should Africans be mistreated? Probably not (rather, the people who are being mistreated are usually White), but they have their own continent, large enough to fit Europe and the U.S. in it with room to spare. The one area where there were Whites (SA) was a bastion of civilized thought and culture.

            It’s actually funny you should say, because in my own “woodpile” I have some Scottish blood. My father’s side has been here since before the Civil War, owned slaves in Georgia (they were treated well by account), and fought for the South. His sister married a Protestant Scottish man after the war. Likewise, I wouldn’t call myself Scottish, but no son of Scotland has ever caused me trouble. I have, on the other hand, been robbed by blacks. I don’t dislike all blacks, but I find they have a propensity to behave in that same way that has caused their continent to achieve nothing despite the billions of dollars it receives from countries everywhere. Whereas a few pioneering Whites can show up with nothing and forge a lasting society. With motivation, principles, and creative intellect.

            Ignoring race doesn’t make it less influential. On the contrary, nothing/little is going to be accomplished unless we recognize the racial realities of our time. So yes, for my part I enjoy White Christian society, as long as nobody is trying to kill me. Which is why I want it to remain that way: a White Christian society. There weren’t black Muslims at the Continental Congress. There were Godly men. Maybe some of them were “Deists” or whatever… But as far as I’m concerned, they were White and they inherited a proper and moral soul– From God, through the Torah. Which is good, in my book.

            Also, I apologize for long-winded responses. I have a tendency to be overly thorough, perhaps.

          • I like & respect your position, but…most Jews are lefties: I also understand historical reasons for that, but… they are so thick and you simply cannot reason with them. Be as it may- welcome to AmRen.

          • NeanderthalDNA

            I tend toward windiness myself. No prob – important stuff and not twitter, lol…

          • Perhaps something to do with mutually held stereotypes regarding Scot and Jew,.


          • NeanderthalDNA

            Yeah, worked as all sorts of things, including “middle man”. Pretty sure a beloved uncle was from an ex-Jew family. He always denied it and I guess not, but…

            Got invited to Synagogue during the War by a Jewish soldier who wouldn’t believe he wasn’t Jewish, lol…

            Old Southern Jews seem to have blended pretty thoroughly. If most were Sephardic, judging by the high number of blonde Jews and Jewesses I’ve known, must have been mixing with the predominant NW European stock quite a bit for quite a while.

            Add in more recent Ashkenazi Jews and there is really no appreciable physical difference from non-Jewish whiteys.

            Why should I have a problem with these people?! Never got it, you know?

          • ProWhite son of Jacob

            The first colonial Jews to the Americas were mostly Sephardic Italians, French, and Spanish, starting in the 1500s. The second wave were Prussian, Austrian, German, Polish and Dutch Ashkenazi, after 1860 when there was political instability and war in the new German confederation–Deutscher Bund. A Russian arrival in the 1880s from pogroms… And then more Ashkenazi in the 1930s.

            Here’s an interesting article on hair color:

            From the article:
            “Andree (“Zur Volkskunde der Juden,” pp. 34-40) points out that the fact
            that red and blond Jews are found in North Africa, Syria, Arabia,
            Persia, etc., is proof that intermarriage has had little to do with the
            production of the blond type in eastern Europe. He is of the opinion
            that there were blonds among the ancient Hebrews, and that the modern
            red and blond Jews are their descendants.”

            It is likely a little of both genes and intermarriage. There are higher rates of blonds in Europe, showing intermarriage. But there are also Jews with blond and red hair in North Africa… And they stand out among the local population, which generally have darker features. So in North Africa, it’s not because of intermarriage. Intermarriage there, would generally make them brown with black hair.

          • NeanderthalDNA

            Hmm…interesting. I’m pretty confident genetic science will ultimately solve this mystery, although since it’s such taboo in the West to contradict liblefty canon…probably gonna take the Chinese to figure it out (or at least SAY it when they do).

            Of course you know it also looks like the ancient Near East was in fact a lot whiter at one time. Medes and Hittites and Cimmerians and such were a major part of the area and certainly must have contributed to the genetics. I always wonder just how much darker the place got after White civilization got strong enough to resist having uncounted millions forced into Islamic slavery – and thence forced the slavers to import more subSaharan Africans to feed their addiction to the sloth and degeneracy enabling institution.

            Also I wonder what effect the matrilineal lineage thing has had.

          • ProWhite son of Jacob

            It is fascinating. For example, many do not know that this actress (Mélanie Laurent: is not Ashkenazi, but actually part Ashkenazi and part Sephardic. People wonder, if she is also (Tunisian) Sephardic, shouldn’t she have an olive-skinned complexion? But Jews in North Africa don’t always look like the Arabs and Libyans around them.

      • ProWhite son of Jacob

        Also, I do apologize if you are Atheist. I have trouble determining based on your message. If you are, I do get along with Atheists as long as they aren’t needlessly belligerent in their Hegelian (usually unwarranted) righteousness. I mention this because I have gotten into conversations with people before concerning religion… And they turned out to not believe in God anyway. My speculation is always, “Why bother to interact then?” I sense you have a keen mind though and perhaps enjoy these subjects as much as I do… Although I’m not sure what “J*w” means.
        Anyway, peace brother.

  • luca732005

    ” Evola wrote that to the extent that Italians were Aryans”

    No. Italians are not descended from Illiterates.

    Italians are Latins.

    Italians of today are descendants of Romans who lived there 2,000 years ago. By Romans, I mean inhabitants of the city of Rome who had spread out (thinly) to conquer and administer a vast Mediterranean empire by that time. We watch movies in which hordes of barbarians invade, knock down the columns, set things on fire, and carry off the dancing girls. Actually, the population of Italy was in the 10s of millions (while the lombard migrations for instance numbered around 200,000). The Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Huns, Arabs, and Normans were each in the 10s of thousands. The descendants of these invaders are still there. But much more numerous are the descendants of the original Italians.

    See: Heather, Empires and Barbarians: Migration, Development and the Birth of Europe. (London: Macmillan, 2009)

  • luca732005


    Roman State.

    * Roman Kingdom (753 BC — 509 BC).
    * Roman Republic (509 BC — 27 BC).
    * Roman Empire (27 BC — 395 AD).
    * Western Roman Empire (395 AD — 476 AD).
    * Eastern Roman Empire (395 AD — 610 AD).

    By 610, the Eastern Roman Empire had come under definite Greek influence, and could be considered to have become what many modern historians now call the Byzantine Empire; however, the Empire was never called thus by its inhabitants, who used terms such as Romania, Basileia Romaion or Pragmata Romaion, meaning “Land of the Romans”, “Kingdom of the Romans”, and who still saw themselves as Romans, and their state as the rightful successor to the ancient empire of Rome.

    * Byzantine Empire (610 — 1204 / 1261 — 1453).
    * Empire of Nicaea (1204 — 1261).
    * Despotate of Epirus (1204 — 1337).
    * Empire of Trebizond (1204 — 1461).
    * Despotate of the Morea (1308 — 1460).

    If the traditional date for the founding of Rome is accepted as fact, the Roman state can be said to have lasted in some form from 753 BC to the fall in 1475 of the Principality of Theodoro (a successor state and fragment of the Byzantine Empire which escaped conquest by the Ottomans in 1453), for a total of 2,236 years.

    From antiquity until the late 16th century, Italy was considered as the central place of Western culture, the starting point of worldwide phenomena such as the Roman Empire, the Roman Catholic Church, Humanism and the Renaissance.

    Italians = The best

  • luca732005

    This site is Nazi ?

    “White people” (ahahaha)

    I am Italian:

    * My great-great grandfather was born in Libya and moved to Italy. A nobleman.
    * My mother has blue eyes and blond (northern Italy) … a barbarian

    “I have blue eyes and pale skin .. at school my friends called me Capser”

  • luca732005

    Casper the ghost.

  • luca732005

    Two of my friends have brown hair and eyes blacks. Their complexion is dark. Their nickname is the “black”

    My nickname is Casper. I have blue eyes and fair complexion.

    The Italians have brown hair and eyes blacks. There are also Italian blonde hair and blue eyes. My best friend for example is blond with blue eyes.

  • luca732005
  • luca732005

    IQ test (2)


    IQ 131

    IQ 121 UP TO 137

    My great-grandfather was the Libyan.

  • luca732005

    I don’t speak English (Google Translate)

  • luca732005

    The Greatness of a Nation are the Leading Figures in the Arts and Sciences … scientific discoveries …

    I love science … chemistry … the precision … the order … the discipline … beautiful.

  • luca732005

    This site is Nazi. I am a small black Libyan … I’m leaving.

    The races do not exist.


  • luca732005

    I joked.

    My great-grandfather was a noble of Libya. Land … was very rich.
    My mother is blonde with blue eyes.
    Maledetti nazisti.

  • Heardnebba

    For a pro-white political theory, our points of reference should be Athenian democracy, the Roman republic, medieval Iceland, city states of the Italian Renaissance, and the Founding Fathers. It should not be the obscurantist, authoritarian, absolutist, tyrannical government that Evola recommends. Why Evola is even taken seriously on the racial right is a mystery to me. Referencing his work or ideas suggests that racial conservatives *must* favor anti-democratic, authoritarian, or fascist government.

  • A Reader

    Calling fascism and Nazism Right movements is a common mistake.

    Nazism was a brutally implemented non-Marxian socialism + nominal eugenics (state-mandated elimination of the declared “least fit”) while the “Liberalism” is a relatively mild (so far) form of non-Marxian (so far) socialism + actual dysgenics (state-mandated selective support for the actually least fit at the expense and to the detriment of the most fit and their progeny).

    (Quotation from )

    To see the absurdity of these claims, try to figure out if Mussolini and Hitler, who turned their countries upside-down, were conservatives. (Of course, they were not.)

    What we see here are desperate attempts of the Left to distance itself from the sister regimes that killed tens of millions of the innocent.