Nietzsche vs. Melville

Apparent vs. true worlds.

See this from Herman Melville’s Moby Dick, a quote that I consider the philosophical core of the book:

Hark ye yet again—the little lower layer. All visible objects, man, are but as pasteboard masks. But in each event—in the living act, the undoubted deed—there, some unknown but still reasoning thing puts forth the mouldings of its features from behind the unreasoning mask. If man will strike, strike through the mask! How can the prisoner reach outside except by thrusting through the wall? To me, the white whale is that wall, shoved near to me. Sometimes I think there’s naught beyond. But ’tis enough. He tasks me; he heaps me; I see in him outrageous strength, with an inscrutable malice sinewing it. That inscrutable thing is chiefly what I hate; and be the white whale agent, or be the white whale principal, I will wreak that hate upon him. Talk not to me of blasphemy, man; I’d strike the sun if it insulted me. For could the sun do that, then could I do the other; since there is ever a sort of fair play herein, jealousy presiding over all creations. But not my master, man, is even that fair play. Who’s over me? Truth hath no confines.

So, what is Melville, speaking through Ahab, saying here?  Everything that we can perceive through our senses, the material world – “visible objects”- is just surface veneer, a façade, “pasteboard masks,” which conceals the true, hidden reality beneath it.  This hidden reality is manifested in, or simply is, some “unknown but still reasoning thing” (God?). Events, acts, and deeds can sometimes reveal the presence of this hidden, unknown thing – it “puts forth the mouldings of its features from behind the unreasoning mask.”  So, if one wants to strike out at this hidden force, this manipulator of events, one has to “strike through the mask!”  After all, if the mask is hiding the true driving force behind events, and if some events reveal the presence of that hidden force, then one can access the hidden force, attack it, harm it, by striking through the mask behind which it hides. Or, our perceived reality is akin to a prison, and to reach out beyond it to strike out against that which imprisons us - our jailor - we need to thrust “through the wall” of that prison.  To Ahab, the event which revealed the presence of the “unknown but still reasoning thing” was the loss of his leg, and Moby Dick is the wall that forms part of Ahab’s prison.  

Ahab is unsure if Moby Dick is just the agent of the unknown force - thus, the whale is a “pasteboard mask” - or if the whale is actually the principal, the hidden force itself (e.g., “Sometimes I think there’s naught beyond"). It seems to me that, according to Ahab’s epistemology of reality, it makes more sense for the whale to be the agent of something else. Besides the absurdity of a whale being the principal of which Ahab speaks, the animal is hardly an “unknown thing." How could Moby Dick be both the wall and the jailor, the pasteboard mask and that behind it?  It makes more sense for the whale to be the agent of another force that Ahab opposes and that he strikes at that “unknown but still reasoning thing” by hunting and killing Moby Dick (thus, striking through the mask).  But in the end, it doesn’t matter to Ahab; either way, he hates and must kill the whale and what it represents: “But ’tis enough. He tasks me; he heaps me; I see in him outrageous strength, with an inscrutable malice sinewing it. That inscrutable thing is chiefly what I hate…”  

Ahab then further displays his Faustian nature by: “I’d strike the sun if it insulted me” and that he has no master and that he represents truth: “But not my master, man, is even that fair play. Who’s over me? Truth hath no confines.”  For moralpathy and Ahab as moralpath, see here.

Ahab’s discourse, in which he contrasts the visible world of our perception and the unknown thins lurking behind it, reminds one of the distinction between the apparent and true world paradigms analyzed by Nietzsche in Twilight of the Idols.  For Ahab (and Melville), the world of our perception is the apparent world, but there is underlying this a true (or more true) world of the “unknown but still reasoning thing.” Let’s see what Nietzsche has to say about this.

The true world -- we have abolished. What world has remained? The apparent one perhaps? But no! With the true world we have also abolished the apparent one

The full quote:

It will be appreciated if I condense so essential and so new an insight into four theses. In that way I facilitate comprehension; in that way I provoke contradiction.

First proposition. The reasons for which "this" world has been characterized as "apparent" are the very reasons which indicate its reality; any other kind of reality is absolutely indemonstrable.

A very positivist, materialist, empiricist, scientific view. I say that as praise, not condemnation.

Second proposition. The criteria which have been bestowed on the "true being" of things are the criteria of not-being, of nothingness, the "true world" has been constructed out of contradiction to the actual world: indeed an apparent world, insofar as it is merely a moral-optical illusion.

Third proposition. To invent fables about a world "other" than this one has no meaning at all, unless an instinct of slander, detraction, and suspicion against life has gained the upper hand in us: in that case, we avenge ourselves against life with a phantasmagoria of "another," a "better" life.

Christianity in a nutshell.  Also, much of the nonsense about a superior Golden Age of the “traditionalists” (Nietzsche denounced this view, recognizing that the past was an age lower than that of the present).

Fourth proposition. Any distinction between a "true" and an "apparent" world -- whether in the Christian manner or in the manner of Kant (in the end, an underhanded Christian) -- is only a suggestion of decadence, a symptom of the decline of life. That the artist esteems appearance higher than reality is no objection to this proposition. For "appearance" in this case means reality once more, only by way of selection, reinforcement, and correction. The tragic artist is no pessimist: he is precisely the one who says Yes to everything questionable, even to the terrible -- he is Dionysian.

The full reasoning:

How the “True World” Finally Became An Fable:

The History of an Error

1. The true world -- attainable for the sage, the pious, the virtuous man; he lives in it, he is it.

(The oldest form of the idea, relatively sensible, simple, and persuasive. A circumlocution for the sentence, "I, Plato, am the truth.")

The Classical Civilization.

2. The true world -- unattainable for now, but promised for the sage, the pious, the virtuous man ("for the sinner who repents").

(Progress of the idea: it becomes more subtle, insidious, incomprehensible -- it becomes female, it becomes Christian.)

Christianity = feminine, subtle, insidious, incomprehensible.

3. The true world -- unattainable, indemonstrable, unpromisable; but the very thought of it -- a consolation, an obligation, an imperative.

(At bottom, the old sun, but seen through mist and skepticism. The idea has become elusive, pale, Nordic, Königsbergian [i.e., Kantian].)

The characterization of “Nordic” is amusing here given certain connotations in the “movement.” Gregor associated Nordicism with an ideology of despair, as Guntherite Nordicism harkened back to a better past of pure Nordics that have become mongrelized and degraded; somewhat differently, but with a similar tone, modern Nordicists aver that pure Nordics still exist but are always endangered by mixture with inferior peoples. Nordicism is also associated with Traditionalism and its obsession with a past Golden Age. So, in a sense, Nordicist narratives are “a consolation, an obligation, an imperative” but, on the other hand, modern Nordicists would object to the characterization of their ideology as “unattainable, indemonstrable, unpromisable” since they will argue that Nordic, or “Nordish,” preservationism is attainable, demonstrable, and promisable.

4. The true world -- unattainable? At any rate, unattained. And being unattained, also unknown. Consequently, not consoling, redeeming, or obligating: how could something unknown obligate us?

(Gray morning. The first yawn of reason. The cockcrow of positivism.)

5. The "true" world -- an idea which is no longer good for anything, not even obligating -- an idea which has become useless and superfluous -- consequently, a refuted idea: let us abolish it!

(Bright day; breakfast; return of bon sens [“good sense”] and cheerfulness; Plato's embarrassed blush; pandemonium of all free spirits.)

6. The true world -- we have abolished. What world has remained? The apparent one perhaps? But no! With the true world we have also abolished the apparent one.

(Noon; moment of the briefest shadow; end of the longest error; high point of humanity; INCIPIT ZARATHUSTRA. [“Zarathustra begins”])

So, the argument is, there is no “true world” and no “apparent world” but only the world, the reality that we inhabit (and realization of this is the first step toward the Overman).

This would seem to be incompatible with the Melville/Ahab view.

An interpretation of Nietzsche’s views on this this subject:

Nietzsche’s How the ‘Real World’ at Last Became a Myth appears in Twilight of the Idols (1889). In this short, sequential, text he outlines what he subtitles as the “History of an Error”. The genealogy traces the notion of the division of the world into reality and appearance from its original mystic formulation (“I, Plato, am the Truth”), through the Platonic cave, the neo-platonist Christian interpretation, onto the Kantian noumenon and suprasensible ground of morality. From there, after it finds its most pure expression in the sterile Kantian thing-in-itself, the notion becomes increasingly suspect, culminating in its dismissal, and with it, the entire dichotomy of apparent/real, representation/thing-in-itself. Both the suprasensible “real world” and the apparent world of representation are overcome.

Nietzsche, with characteristic modesty, concludes that it is precisely at the moment when this millennia old metaphysical error has been completely eviscerated, with humanity now free from the specter of an all powerful beyond, that his text Thus Spoke Zarathustra truly begins.

Again, it would seem that Nietzsche is in opposition to Melville (I would have liked to see Nietzsche analyze Moby Dick).

As a STEM empiricist, I have an affinity for Nietzsche’s view. On the other hand, I still see value in Melville’s formulation. How to square the circle? Perhaps we need to review Melville’s description of the “unknown” as a “reasoning thing.” What if the known and unknown are both part of the same actuality?  The known is part of reality that we currently are able to perceive and the unknown is that we are currently unable to perceive but is still a real part of that same reality, something that could in theory be perceived if we had the power to do so (whether or not it is realistically possible for humans to ever have this power is itself currently an unknown).  What if this “unknown” is not so much a “reasoning thing” but some manifestation of nature and nature’s laws that we cannot yet perceive?  But, then again, maybe there is some “reasoning thing” involved but something that is not supernatural or part of a hidden “true” world but, again, is a manifestation of a reality that is hidden from us simply because we currently do not have the power to perceive it. Modern scientific philosophy has some interesting ideas related to this approach to Melville's views.  See this.  And this. 

Thus, is the “unknown but still reasoning” thing a part of our reality that has an inherent consciousness of which we have heretofore been unaware?

So, Nietzsche is, in my opinion, correct that there is a reality that is material and that could in theory be empirically determined, that there is no “true” vs “apparent” world, but as part of reality are things that we cannot (yet) perceive and that act (or seem to act) towards us in ways akin to Ahab’s complaint about hidden actors whose presence can make themselves known through certain events.

Holy Legionary Youth

Book review.  The Legionary Movement.

See this.

I have long been a supporter of the Legionary Movement, and try to read good quality material on this topic, avoiding “hit pieces” animated by anti-Legionary bias. Thus, this book looked like an attractive offering. Alas, I was disappointed with respect to this book being a purely objective approach by the author. Unfortunately, it wasn't.

The author is obviously some sort of simpering leftist (see his bias here) who has a footnote in the beginning of the book agonizing over the use of words like “Romanians” and “Jews”- terms linked to “racist” sources.  How dare you identify people by ethnicity!  What a buffoon this idiot is. First, subjectively, Jews have no problem self-identifying as Jews, distinct from Romanians (and vice versa) – so how is it “racist” to recognize that these identity groups exist?  Second, objectively, genetic analysis allows us to distinguish ethnic Jews from ethnic Romanians – so how is recognizing these differences something wrong and “racist?”

The author considers fascism to be a “social category,” one becomes a fascist, and does so through everyday activities, by action, one lives a fascist lifestyle, rather than following a specific ideology. There is some truth to that, but the author and others he cites follows that line too far, the idea that fascism has no ideology would certainly come as a surprise to, say, Gentile or Rosenberg.  But, again, fascism is more of a secular religion, a lived experience, an existential form of politics, rather than an extremely formalized rigid theoretical ideology.  One can of course move forward from that, thus underscoring the difference between authentic fascism and para-fascism. Can anyone imagine Franco and members of his conservative reactionary authoritarian regime living a fascist life, following a secular religion?  The idea is ludicrous. Many of the reactionary regimes classified by political retardates as “fascist” were no more “fascist” than Ronald Reagan or Donald Trump.  Fascism – contra leftist lies – is a revolutionary movement, and considering it as a “social category” and a lived experience is useful for distinguishing it from para-fascist reaction.

Putting aside the author's implied nonsense of nationalism being some sort of construct used by “social actors” to achieve goals independent of objective nationhood, we can observe how Romanian nationalism evolved, with "the other” being Ottomans, Greeks, etc., before Romanian nationhood, and then focused on the Jewish problem (Jews as "the other") afterward. Interestingly, after widespread Jewish immigration (invasion) into Romania, Romanian texts of that time characterized Jews as “sly, deceitful, ugly, smelly, cowardly, and lazy.” I’ll leave it up as an exercise to the reader to reflect on how these “stereotypes” - particularly those about “sly, deceitful,” and ugly” - seem consistent over time and space with respect to how those peoples thought about the Jews living amongst them. There does seem to be an element of consistency there.  If a wide variety of peoples have the same opinion, is it perhaps the target of the opinion that needs to be looked at as the problem, rather than all of the other, varied aggrieved peoples?  After decades of Holocaust propaganda and associated guilt-tripping, as well as intense social pricing against “anti-Semitism,” anti-Jewish hostility still exists, testament to the characteristics of Jews that continuously trigger these reactions among the vast array of the Gentile peoples.

As an example of the mendacious leftist approach to these issues, let us consider how the author evaluates the outbreak of aggressive nationalism and “anti-Semitism” among Romanian university students in the early 1920s.  We are told that this activism was an “outlet for their frustrations;” thus, the Romanians were poorly educated and ill-prepared for the university, and were also subject to sub-standard living conditions; thus, they picked on the poor, innocent, persecuted Jews. As a specific example of mendacity by omission and implication, we can consider the Jewish cadaver controversy. The author relates the following.  Jewish religious belief opposes, or at least opposed, the use of Jewish bodies for medical dissection. The Romanian students accused Jewish students of removing Jewish bodies from the school to prevent their use, but at the same time the Jewish students were very willing to dissect “Christian” (i.e., Gentile – presumably mostly ethnic Romanian) bodies. Presumably, the Romanian students, in contrast, made no distinction, and would use all bodies.  I note that the author doesn’t comment on whether this anti-Jewish accusation was true (likely, it was), but instead omits any analysis of the actual facts and implies that the incident reflects hateful Romanian racist “anti-Semitism” and the “frustrations” of the students.

But, we shall consider the situation here.  If the author acknowledges that Jewish religious belief is so opposed to the use of Jewish bodies for dissection (while having no such opposition for Gentile bodies), then isn’t it possible – likely even – that Jewish students would refuse to dissect Jewish bodies?  Isn’t it possible that the Romanian students noticed Jewish bodies missing and “put two and two together” to realize that the Jewish students were removing the Jewish bodies to prevent their use?  Isn’t it possible, and likely, that at least some Jewish students were actually removing the Jewish bodies? And isn’t it true that those same Jews would have no problem dissecting Romanian cadavers?  Isn’t it possible that there was strong evidence supporting the accusation?  And isn’t it reasonable that such Jewish behavior would fuel anti-Jewish feeling among Romanians?  Or are we to believe that the accusation was made up over nothing, that Jewish students happily dissected Jewish cadavers in opposition to their religion, and that the whole thing was nothing more than “dumb Romanians venting their frustrations?”

What do you think?

Interestingly, the issue was resolved by the school saying that Christian students dissect Christian cadavers and Jewish students dissect Jewish ones (dissection separatism), and if the Jewish students didn’t like it, they could go study anatomy in a museum.  Sure sounds to me like the medical school certainly believed that there was a problem with Jewish students refusing to allow Jewish bodies to be dissected.

Then, the author dismisses Romanian complaints of Romanians being attacked by Jews, because those attacks “were not reported by non-fascist sources,” while all instances of Romanians attacking Jews are accepted at face value by the author.  Looking at how the American media of today selectively reports news, and ignores Black-on-White crime, selectively reports only rare instances of the opposite, and harps on about almost non-existent “White supremacist” violence while ignoring Antifa/BLM rioting, you can judge for yourself the probability that Jewish-leftist-establishment Romanian newspapers of the interwar period were accurately reporting instances of inter-group violence.

Broad segments of Romanian society at that time supported even the most radical of the students, including the so-called Vacarestini, led by Codreanu and Mota, who were accused of plotting assassinations in 1923. This later evolved into the broad support given to the Legionary Movement.  This is contrasted to the complete lack of support given to even the most moderate pro-White activists in America, and throughout the “West.” 

The continued acquittals of Romanian student nationalists – even when obviously guilty; thus, they were political acquittals – was another sign of broad support. Indeed, not only students benefited from this; in one case, a Romanian peasant was acquitted for killing a Jewish landowner with an ax based on the fact that the murder was viewed as a legitimate protest against the Jewish danger. Thus, we can assume that “over-the-top” Romanian ultranationalist behavior, while perhaps sometimes regrettable, was often provoked by Jewish misbehavior. Further, elite individuals supported the nationalist cause, and the fact that so many students were on the Far Right – unlike the “West” today – is suggestive of a broad support for nationalism in Romanian society at that time. Also, we can consider the Legion's emphasis on youth. Now, I have been critical of the Alt Right and its "youth culture," but that's not the same thing as what the Legion did. The Legion appealed to youth on the Legion's terms, on the basis of high morals and the ideal of the New Man That was unlike the Alt Right associating itself with juvenile jackassery as its own manifestation of so-called "youth culture." The Legion appealed to the best aspects of Romanian youth, while the Alt Right catered to the lowest aspects of "youthful" behavior.

Even taking the author’s biases into account, it is clear that the ultranationalist students used “intimidation and violence” to influence events to their advantage. While the Sallis Groupuscule preaches peace and pacifism – I ooze with the milk of human kindness indeed! – we can ask whether any dissident movement can achieve its goals without a bit of “intimidation and violence.” Another interesting note is the intra-nationalist feuding and fighting going on in interwar Romania, particularly that between the Legionaries and the Cuzists, which makes one reflect on the bitter, but mostly non-violent and mostly memetic, feuding and fighting within the “movement” today.  At least back then, the nationalists were successful against the Left; today, it seems the only “victories” achieved are those against others on the Right. Interestingly as well, the author seems to have no problem with violence against Legionaries, such as gendarmes and other state actors attacking members of the Legion.

One can contrast the discipline and dedication of the Legionaries (even when they were being violent) with the defective freaks of Der Movement today. Codreanu exerted strict control over the behavior of the people in his movement, gave out punishments (some even arbitrary), and once, bizarrely, punished one prominent follower for no reason other than to “test” how that person “would react to an injustice that came from the head of the Legion.” Financial mismanagement and selfish enrichment, including stealing money, was harshly dealt with; this can be contrast to the grifters of the “movement” today.  In contrast to “the big tent” promoted by today’s Quota Queens (we must maximize “D’Nations” after all), Codreanu emphasized quality – he asserted, “As few Legionaries and as many friends as possible…for every twenty requests to join, nineteen will be rejected and one accepted. The best one.” Can you imagine the money-hungry grifters of today being so stringent with membership (cutting back on “membership dues”)?  Codreanu also made a distinction between the Legionaries who went through the persecutions of 1933 and others who joined later, when things were easier – the latter had to prove themselves with a long apprenticeship before being accepted as full-fledged Legionaries. Again compare to today’s “anything goes” attitude.

The “New Man” was the key to Legionary ideology; hence, the author quotes Codreanu: 

This country is dying because it lacks men, not because it lacks [political] programs. That is our belief Therefore, we do not need to build programs, but men, new men.”  

And thus, the Legionary movement was, according to Codreanu:

...more a school and an army than a political party…Everything that our minds can imagine that is nobler in soul, everything that can make our race prouder, higher, more righteous, stronger, wiser, purer, harder working, and more courageous – that is what the legionary school must produce!

One can contrast that not only to other fascist groups of that period but especially to the Far Right of today, which excuses the abysmal, degenerate “quality” of many of its members and supporters by invoking “big tent,” and which is led by “leaders” many of whom are freaks, perverts, incompetents, grifters, frauds, and those with terminally poor judgment. One can compare the Legionary work camp, where constructive practical work was done to help build character, to today’s displays of homosexual flirting and harassment at Alt Right meetings, or to folks going to inept Alt Right rallies dressed in cosplay costumes. To those who claim that work camps today would be subject to persecution and thus activists are at a disadvantage compared to the Legionaries, I reply that they should recall that the Legionaries were getting their heads bashed in regularly by gendarmes, and they were being routinely jailed. The circumstances are not the same as today that is true; for example, the Legionaries enjoyed a degree of popular support that the Far Right of today can only dream of, but, still, there was still enormous risk in all of their endeavors.

The author, of course has to tell us that the work camps mostly benefited the Legion itself rather than being purely charitable – as if that were a bad thing, and then breathlessly tells us how the Legion leveraged kinship networks to make the family “fascist.”  If true, then…so? Sounds good to me. Legionary forays into business, cooperatives, restaurants, etc. was all for the good – helping the Legionaries support themselves and setting up an alternative economy competing against Jewish-owned businesses, and offering fair prices. Sounds excellent. Further, working in such restaurants there were lawyers and other professionals, who were serving lower-class customers, helping to break down intra-ethnic class barriers.

With respect to core aspects of the Legionary worldview, the author evaluates claims that the Legion, like fascism in general, was a “revolt against modernity,” and concludes that the description of “reactionary modernism” fits best – thus, the Legion promoted “traditionalist” values and a more or less specifically Romanian culture and ethos while, at the same time, accepting and utilizing modern technology. In some case, a superficial traditional veneer was plastered over modern life; thus, bride and groom would come to the wedding dressed in peasant garb, riding in a horse drawn cart, while guests would arrive by train or automobile, and the festivities would be recorded by motion picture equipment. But then the author talks about an affinity of Codreanu for a “rural utopia” and then defines “modernism” thus – “a revolt against widespread apathy in the face of the death of God and an attempt to imagine a new world of creative possibilities,” said possibilities including “chaos, violence, mysticism, and nihilism.” So, the author is all over the place here. For another view of the relationship between the Legion and technics, see this.

The author then attempts to solve these conflicts by asserting that the Legion was always more concerned with practical matters than with ideas (like “modernism”) despite that idea of the New Man being a cornerstone of Legionary ideology. Perhaps the author got lost in his own contradictions and this hand-waving “solution” was the easiest way for him to cut the “Gordian knot” of the “modernism” question.

Interestingly, some wealthy Jews contributed to the Legion, ostensibly to protect their business interests.  Also, what to make of the Romanian government outlawing the wearing of shirts of varied colors (each color affiliated with a different political movement) as part of anti-uniform laws?  So many colors were outlawed it is difficult to discern what Romanians were actually wearing that time – the stupidities of “liberal democracy” on full display. The book also discusses the Legion’s foray into electoral politics – so-called “fascist authoritarian democracy” – something they were more adept at than the freakshow rejects of today’s American “scene.” Unfortunately, the author does not discuss the Legion’s participation in the 1934 Montreux conference.

The book retells the end of the Legion, which underscores how vulnerable dissident social-political movements – even very popular ones – are to determined state force. The execrable King Carol declared a royal dictatorship, banned political parties, and superficially instituted some window-dressing ultra nationalist policies.  Codreanu disbanded the Legion, but was still arrested for “treason” and murdered. When the Legion made a brief comeback as part of the National Legionary State under Antonescu, a falling out with that leader led to the Legion being completely crushed with state force. Remaining Legionaries in Romania were later persecuted and tortured by the communist regime.  One remembers how quickly Mussolini’s regime fell as well.  One should never attempt to share power with a King or a military dictator; a movement must take complete control, as did Nazism is Germany.

Essentially, the author is correct in situating fascism more as a way of living, a worldview, a conception of human-political reality, rather than a strict dogmatic ideology – hence, the “protean” nature of fascism we hear so much about from so-called “experts” like Griffin.

I remember an issue of Resistance magazine from the mid-late 1990s that had a picture of some American national socialists, with at least one of them wearing a t-shirt saying “I am born again” (or something like that) with a swastika…you get the overall picture, even if I’m off with some minor details. That is of course why – the Legionary movement being an exception to some extent – there is always some tension between fascism and traditional religion, since fascism itself is a form of secular religion. One becomes a fascist, one lives as a fascist, one believes and acts as a fascist, but there is no one single, specific overarching ideology beyond the minimalist core of “palingenetic ultra-nationalism.” 

Now, in the section on the Legionary Movement and religion, the author states that one reason that Orthodox (and in some cases, Catholic) priests were attracted to the Legionary Movement was precisely because it was not a secular religion, but instead was a political movement with religious views congenial to the priests. However, I see the Legion’s emphasis on religion as an epiphenomenon of its core palingenetic values; thus, I can admire the Legion while myself being an anti-religious atheist. One must distinguish between the fundamental worldview of an entity and how that worldview is manifested in particular cultural contexts.

The book quotes Mota as advocated a life of “truth, justice, and virtue,” and one is reminded of this description of what I call “Type II fascists" -

The others did not have boots, they held up their skinny reformers’ heads severely, they wore glasses, they collected cards, and they made furious speeches.

This all fits with the Legionary emphasis on the New Man, on ethical behavior as opposed to ideology, and to “deeds, not words.”  The lived experience of fascism contrasts to the navel-gazing, nitpicking political-ideological debates of Marxists and other leftists. The Legion constituted an “aristocracy of merit” that transcended class and contrasts to the “degeneracy of ineptness” of today’s “movement.”

Some final criticism of the book is in order here. The book could have used some more careful editing and proofreading. For example, Table 6.1 is a tabulation of the number of Legionary “nests” and their members in Romania over time from 1933-1937, but the table is titled “Ethnic groups in Romania in 1930,” which was actually the (correct) title of Table 1.1. Thus, Table 6.1 had the wrong title.

The overall tone of the book, which was not smooth reading, was a bit of a self-important leftist academic putting “fascists” under the microscope in a manner that is supposed to be objective, but that reflects underlying biases. I didn’t think it possible for a book about the Legionary Movement to be boring, but this author handily accomplished this seemingly impossible task.  Congratulations!

Yockey in the 21st Century

Relevance of Yockey today.

What relevance does the work of Francis Parker Yockey have for the Far Right today, in the 21st century, after the drama of Trump, in the ruins of the Alt Right, after Brexit, and within the context of current-day nationalist activism?

Yockey’s work, including and especially Imperium, has genuine support from a small and very selective fraction of the Far Right, which includes some of its more thoughtful members. Unfortunately, Yockey’s work is also insincerely promoted by some who Yockey would have denounced as treasonous Culture Retarders – ethnonationalists, some of whom proudly self-described as “petty nationalists” and who oppose pan-Europeanism and Yockey’s Imperium idea. We have also seen a resurgence of another rightist paradigm that Yockey opposed – Nordicism (and other similar forms of divisive ethnic fetishism). Yet another extant rightist paradigm that Yockey would oppose, and that itself opposes Yockeyian pan-Europeanism, is the HBD cult, which worships IQ, divides Europeans against each other, and elevates Jews and East Asians as superior Herrenvolk. Indeed, all three branches of the anti-Yockeyian Right have formed an informal collaboration - the HBD-Nordicist-ethnonationalist alliance, which is particularly strong in the Anglosphere, even more particularly in America. So, while Yockey and his work has some cachet on the Right, in general, the current trends in Far Right "thought" are for the most part unalterably opposed to Yockey’s grand idea. In Europe itself, petty nationalist ethnonationalism dominates the Right; the only group related to Yockey’s ideal would be Norman Lowell’s Imperium Europa in Malta. The negative experience of the European Union (EU) has left a bitter taste in the mouth of many in the European Right, much of which is moving away from the idea of “Europe as a nation,” and some of the support these nationalist parties may get from abroad (Russia?) could have interests opposed to European unity.

Indeed, the EU has been a double-edged sword with respect to Yockey’s Imperium ideal.  On the positive side, it demonstrated an inherent European desire for cohesiveness, and it neatly refutes one of the (asinine) arguments of the petty nationalists – e.g.., “how can Europeans be together in the same state when you can’t even get Czechs and Slovaks to stay together in the same state,” or some (moronic) variation thereof. Well, Czechs and Slovaks are no longer in the same nation state, but they are both members of the EU, demonstrating that intra-European ethnic rivalries may be best managed as part of an overarching political structure. On the negative side – and it is a large negative – the way the EU has actually been implemented, as an anti-European, anti-White, and anti-Western globalist monstrosity, enabling genocidal race replacement migration and restricting free speech and the political ability of native Europeans to defend their own group interests, has, to many minds, delegitimized the very idea of a “European Union.” Even a pro-Imperium pan-Europeanist such as myself opposes the current EU and cheered Brexit.  But one must distinguish the fundamental idea of union from the distorted and flawed implementation of the idea. The fact that many on the European Right still support the idea of the EU, at least in principle, despite is horrific actualization, suggests, along with support for the EU across the rest of the political spectrum, broad support, among a large proportion of the European population, for the idea of at least some type of union. In this sense, at the most fundamental level, Yockey has been vindicated.

The future, in the short-term and medium-term, does not look bright for Yockeyism. Obviously, the Left, Center, and Mainstream Right reject a key element of his core message – a European Imperium for Europeans and European interests as opposed to a EU that privileges aliens - and to the extent that Europeans have legitimized part of Yockey’s ideal by embracing the EU, that project has been so mismanaged, has been so hijacked into the antithesis of an authentic Imperium, that it has delegitimized the "Europe as Nation" idea for large swathes of both the Right in general and the Far Right in particular.  In America, Yockeyism has always taken a back seat to Nordicist Nutzism, and even many who superficially promote Yockey’s work actually promote a petty nationalism that Yockey himself would denounce as culture retarding treason. The main currents of Nordicism, HBD, and ethnonationalism inherent in much of American activism is opposed to everything Yockey believed in, fought for, and died for. 

In addition, some individuals who are Yockeyists, or say they are, seem to focus more on the “spiritual” and esoteric aspects of Yockey the man and Yockey the ideologue, and seem uninterested in the hardcore pragmatic political ideals that formed the basis of the Imperium worldview.  Despite the fact that Yockey’s name is often mentioned on the Far Right, and in many ways mentioned positively (but not always positively, of course), the fact also remains that the Far Right for the most part rejects and unalterably opposes Yockeyian pan-Europeanism, and rejects and defames those who actually are pan-Europeanists in a real, genuine sense.

Long-term practical prospects are unknown and I will not speculate on those here. I neither want to be a delusional “victory is assured” fascist of the type Roger Griffin mocks, nor do I want to be equally dogmatic in asserting the inherent impossibility of achieving Yockey’s vision. We can merely be realistic and look ahead, forward to a reasonable time frame, and say that things do not look good at all.

That is all from a descriptive basis. What about prescription?  Here, I suppose I have nothing to say that will be much of a surprise to long time readers of my work. Obviously, I favor, in general, the Yockeyian pan-European perspective, although I of course disagree with Yockey on some fundamental details of epiphenomena associated with his work, the details of which, again, long time readers of my own material should be familiar with. The superiority of the broad Yockeyian perspective should be (but, alas is not for many activists) self-evident, compared to the “competition.”  HBD is transparent Jew-worship and Asian-worship, and is openly hostile to White nationalism and kinship-based racial politics. Nordicism is a factually incorrect, outdated, and needlessly divisive childish ideology, akin in many ways to Afrocentrism, and works against broader White interests. Ethnonationalism is to a large extent responsible for creating the existential race problems Whites face today; further, ethnonationalists typically reveal themselves to be ethnoimperialist hypocrites. Everything Yockey said about “vertical racists” and “culture retarders” fits the Nordicists and ethnonationalists; Yockey couldn’t imagine the stupidity of HBD, but I suppose if you stretch some of his comments against a self-destructively hyper-rationalistic materialist outlook (“it’s all IQ!"), then there would be grist for the mill there. Certainly, one could only imagine what Yockey would think about prioritizing Jewish and Asian interests over those of ethnic Europeans, or what he would think about White “Yellow Supremacists” or “The Arctic Alliance” or “Jeurasian” mongrelization.

We see more and more that the Clash of Civilizations endangers the West.  The threat of the Global South, Islam, China, the culture retarders and other traitors in our own ranks, all of this comes down to the hatred of those opposed to the High Culture of the West, and the treason of those within the West with a vested interest in its downfall, or, at least, a vested interest in perpetuating the intra-West fissures that have led to our sorry state. Against all of this the Yockeyian perspective stands like a colossus.  We also observe that basing White resistance solely on a pure materialist basis not only runs the risk of degenerating into HBD and Nordicism, but lacks the proper motivating passion, the idealism that has always underpinned the self-sacrificial fervor of the leftist enemy. Yockeyism and its objectives - even if possibly “irrational” from the purely empirical perspective - remedies that.  The fact that petty nationalist enemies of Yockey’s Imperium ideal find themselves trying to associate with Yockey, find themselves attracted to his work, even promoting and selling that work (that they actually oppose), attests to that work's power. The EU, for all its faults, points to an inner recognition of European organic solidarity, of White comity, and recent events creates more and more an idea of White solidarity and comity in the European Diaspora, as anti-White forces gather their strength.

Hence, Yockeyism is more relevant than ever, and has more to offer than ever. It is only because of the inherent defects of the “movement” – in America, Europe, and elsewhere – that the descriptive, on-the-ground prospects for Yockeyism is so poor, so disheartening, and why, regardless of what attractiveness “The Cult of Saint Francis” holds for some activists, they reject Yockey’s fundamental message.

The problem is not with Yockeyism; the problem is with the “movement,” broadly defined. Hence, the paradox - in the 21st century, Yockeyism is more relevant than ever, yet it is ignored and disregarded, at least with respect to its practical fundamentals, more than ever. That is a world historical crime for which the “movement” – and the Right more generally – can never be forgiven.

The Moral State

Considerations.

See here.

Salter rightfully criticizes the pure utilitarian ethic from the standpoint of justice.  He provides a theoretical example that I can paraphrase here. Imagine a murder committed in a town, and the local vagrant is suspected.  The police chief then discovers the vagrant is innocent and that the murder was committed by the mayor, who has been an upstanding citizen and a long-standing important member of the town community.  The crime was one of passion and will be unlikely to ever be repeated, while the vagrant is a constant troublemaker. Convicting the vagrant on the basis of partial or invented evidence would be best for the long-term well-being of the town, while arresting and convicting the mayor would cause social upheaval in the town, damage the town’s nascent tourist industry, and cause widespread economic dislocation and hardship for residents.  A purely utilitarian reading of the situation is to let the vagrant hang and let the mayor off Scott-free, but, as Salter notes, this offends our sense of justice (for most of us anyway).  That being so, the utilitarian ethic needs to be balanced by individual rights, and by certain normative values. Pure utility is not sufficient for a truly just ethic.

Thus, Salter suggests a “mixed ethic” where the pursuit of ethnic genetic interests (EGI) is constrained by ethics based on some sort of moral standards. We observe the requirement for moral standards, an ethical code, which should be independent of pure adaptive interests.

There are other potential problems here as well. A purely rational utilitarian state, for example, one dedicated to optimizing EGI as the highest priority and as the overarching imperative, is unlikely to inspire in the people the sort of dedication required to achieve societal objectives. Consider this.

Salterism has two weaknesses. First, a call to “preserve our distinctive genetic information” is unlikely to motivate most Western individuals to defend their genetic interests against the titanic forces arrayed against them. It almost certainly will not motivate the masses, who, as Michael O’Meara rightfully points out, are always induced to act by “myths” that encompass a cohesive worldview. Even rational activists can often become more motivated by these “myths” (which may of course constitute objective facts to a considerable degree) than to a pure empiricism. Thus, the “myth” of Yockeyan “High Culture” may be needed to motivate the defense of rational Salterian EGI.

Thus, some type of "irrational" spiritual, ethical, and moral code, in this case associated with "Yockeyism," can serve as the basis of a worldview that motivates and unifies the populace, and inspires adherence to conduct conducive to EGI.

A purely utilitarian focus on pure EGI can also run into other problems:

Second, genetic interests are based upon differences and distinctions, and all individuals (except identical twins, if we ignore certain subtleties) differ in their genetic information. Therefore, the potential exists for an unrestrained focus on genetic interests to itself degenerate into a maladaptive genetic atomization—with the natural organic solidarity of particular ethnies, and of the West as a whole, disintegrating under an ever more fine series of biological divisions.

There needs to be a moral structure to the state, independent of pure adaptive utilitarianism. Now, that moral structure can (and should) be used instrumentally to favor adaptive, EGI-focused ends. But the moral structure should exist not only for the purpose of promoting a racial state and for making the pursuit of EGI, of adaptive fitness, more palatable to the population – keeping in mind that humans are apparently evolved to benefit from some sort of religious/spiritual beliefs – but has benefits in its own right. Indeed, there needs to be a balance between a "pure ethic" of unrestrained pursuit of genetic interests, and morality that constrains the unrestrained pursuit of absolute EGI, a pursuit that can lead to “maladaptive genetic atomization.” Certainly, as alluded to in that The Occidental Quarterly piece, Yockeyism can be part of the equation; we should remember that a “rebirth of Faith” was cited by Yockey as an integral part of his predicted, and promoted, Imperium.

What can we say about this sense of morality?

Morality can be independent of religion, although, historically, in the Western civilization (and in Late Antiquity), The Moral State was associated with Christianity. Readers of this blog know that I am hostile to Christianity. However, there are certain elements in (Europeanized) Christianity that can be of benefit to society if – and only if – these ideals are limited to one’s own people, rather than to all of humanity (in other words, particularism vs. universalism), and are tempered by adaptive interests and pragmatic prudence. Brotherhood, if limited to ethny, can be positive, as can be charity, similarly limited, restraint of hatred of (personal) enemies and a degree of forgiveness, again limited to the ethny, etc. Aspects of these positive characteristics of Christianity can be incorporated into the moral ideas of a secular moral state.

This is in no way incompatible with an anti-Christian appeal to higher, Nietzschean values; there is nothing that says that such values have to be “immoral” or “amoral” based on the innate human moral sense, but we can, and should construct, our own morality, independent of the dogmas of the past, including that of Christianity, while incorporating whatever was good and just from those past dogmas.

What I suggest is that a proper state based on principles of the Sallis Groupuscule should have a foundation of EGI and adaptive fitness, with the edifice of Yockeyism built upon it, with these two poles of activity and of interest synergizing in the manner described in The Occidental Quarterly article linked to above. 

But there needs to be a moral underpinning for both poles; Salter describes moral, ethical, and philosophical justifications for EGI in Part III of On Genetic Interests, while Yockey, in contrast, considers his Imperium to derives organically from a Spenglerian view of history, as well as the destiny of Western Man. But Yockey does consider Faith as a key part of the authoritarian future of the West. He assumed this will be religious, I suppose in the Christian sense, but we can instead substitute a secular form of morality.  Intra-racial brotherhood, the Golden Rule, respect for oneself and for others (who deserve it), self-overcoming, discipline, hard work, futurist progress, a rejection of free-riding and a more disinterested willingness to invest in collective social goods, a healthy balance between helping oneself and an adaptively-informed “altruism,” avoiding socially destructive behaviors, the list can go on, but the point is that Christianity has no monopoly on “righteous behavior” (however defined). The moral standards that define European culture, both before and after the advent of Christianity, can assist in the development of the secular Moral State. Inherent moral and spiritual characteristics of European Man – see the works of Duchesne to observe how we differ from others – can serve as the basis of Good vs. Bad, independent of old religious dogma. There may very well be some overlap with that dogma, in the cases in which that dogma was formed by the same inherent impulses; in other cases, the morality will be quite different. But it will be suited for our people and their destiny, not something imposed by alien peoples and cultures.

The Moral State will be based on the moral standards of the populace, its leaders, and culture; conversely, The Moral State itself can help direct and guide the development of the moral standards of the people and their culture. Codreanu's Legionary Movement, and its emphasis on the "New Man," and a high moral and ethical culture, can also inform the development of the characteristics of The Moral State.

A non-Christian basis for The Moral State may also be informed by considerations such as described here. Indeed, The Moral State may become the seed of a new beginning, a new High Culture, on in which Faustian impulses are achieved, but with the constraints of an overarching morality that directs activity in the direction of principles consistent with beauty, knowledge, and higher goals.

And the type of individuals who should be prominent in the leadership of such a state is described here. The type of “leaders” found in today’s (American) “movement” – meritless affirmative action hacks, money-hungry grifters, gaslighting liars, inept incompetents with no sense of personal responsibility or accountability, shameless hustlers and mountebanks, sweaty obsessive fetishists, conspiracy theorists, drug addicts, sexual perverts, the chronically impaired with piss-poor judgment – these need to be eschewed. There is no place in The Moral State for failed “leaders” such as that. We deserve better. Our people, our race, and our civilization deserve better. We can and must do better.

Universal Nationalism: Blueprint for the Future

It is necessary.

Salterian Universal Nationalism is the way forward for humanity, despite opposition from both the Left, who want to submerge the White world under the rising tide of color, and elements of the Far Right, who have fantasies of race wars and actual White supremacy.

A world of racially segregated civilizational blocs, each being left alone to develop according to its own destiny, peacefully competing, with survival assured for all, will allow humanity  - or at least the civilized elements of humanity – to focus on other issues, like long-term human survival and advancement, space exploration, and advancing science and technics, including genetics and novel energy production.  Freed from the constraints of endless existential group conflict, human dynamism can be unleashed to ponder great thoughts and actualize great deeds.

Far better this future than an endless spiral of "wokeness,” with racial navel-gazing benefitting the least among humanity, while sacrificing the best. The least among humanity (and we need to be honest enough to recognize enormous differences in achievement and potential between groups) should stop complaining and realize that whatever “suffering” that they imagine they have endured in the past was necessary to birth the world of today and the potential world of tomorrow, just as a woman endures pain in childbirth to bring forth new life. And they should not worry about “justice” – the least, the lowest, among humanity, together with their allies among the higher peoples, have been inflicting endless suffering on the rest of us for many decades now, so they have had, and continue to have, full revenge for whatever injustices that they believe has been done to them. Non-Europeans have had justice galore, they have feasted on justice past the point of engorgement, past the point of any reasonable compensation, and their continued harassment of Europeans is now a manifest injustice. And they always fail to balance the books, and fail to recognize that the dynamism of Western man, that led to whatever episodes that fuel their never-ending grievances, is what has led to the highest standard of living for humanity in our species’ history, and it is the only thing that would allow for humanity's next step upward.

The past is prelude to the future. We have seen that peoples of European stock, and only they, have proven capable of the higher level of civilization, of science, and technics, required to advance humanity to its next level. Universal Nationalism offers a way out of our current morass, an approach that can end the wasteful misappropriation of human material and human resources in endless conflicts, and in fruitless quests to transform sow’s ears into silk purses, and will instead allow us to unlock the full potential of humanity, particularly that potential inherent in European Man.

And if the Colored peoples of the Earth truly believe that they are capable, and if they truly believe that they have been held back by “White racism,” then Universal Nationalism offers a way out for them as well. On the other hand, if they openly acknowledge, or secretly suspect, that they are truly dependent on the White Man, then for that reason they should accept Universal Nationalism, which would preserve the people upon whom they depend.  In either case, Universal Nationalism should be embraced by all peoples. 

We cannot let self-destructive racial envy and vindictiveness, bioleninist rages, and selfish inter-group free-riding, interfere with the attainment of the last and best hope of humanity – a stable world order in which every group is guaranteed the right to exist, given the opportunity to achieve its destiny, and, if it is capable of doing so, contribute to the forward march of human progress.

Ethnic Rights

"Ethnic" as in "ethny." Individual to group.

Read this as a starting point.

I reject Rand’s Semitic flim-flam, and call her out as a member of a highly collectivist ethny preaching the “merits” of anti-group atomized individualism to a competing ethny already prone to individualism.

I maintain that, at minimum, the group as a whole must have all the rights of its constituent members, particularly if those members identify as members of the group in question (but remember that they still have genetic interests in their fellow ethnic group members even if they refuse to acknowledge group identity).

If individuals are said to have certain rights, then those rights do not disappear if the individuals are part of a group with a common ethnic identity and a common fate. If an individual has rights X,Y, and Z, then it stands to reason that a group of, say, one million like individuals also has rights X,Y, and Z. Here we are looking at the question as a minimal realization of the additive nature of interests; we shall look at emergent group interests at the end of this essay.

If an individual White has a right to live and prosper, then a nation of millions of such Whites, identifying as members of that ethny, also has the right to live and prosper. The philosophical underpinning of the Sallis Groupuscule includes the premise that rights are not limited to the individual but also apply to the ethny. Indeed, humanists would assert both individual rights as well as rights for humanity as a whole; I would suppose that most people (except radical environmentalists, anti-natalists, etc.) would not object to the premise that humanity has a right to exist as well as do individual humans. The “sticking point” is at the intermediate level, between that of individuals and humanity – the ethny.  Non-European ethnies typically are acknowledged to have ethnic rights, but these are specifically denied to European-derived ethnies, as if these are some sort of sub-human existence bereft of the same considerations given to all others.

Let us consider individual rights and how they can apply to Whites as a group.

The right to life

Thus, White genocide is wrong. Whites, as a group, have a right to exist and a right to fight to secure the means of their existence.

The right to liberty and freedom

Whites have a right to liberty and freedom; they are denied this by the System and its de jure and de facto laws and regulations and policies that deprive Whites of their basic human rights.

The right to the pursuit of happiness

The right to live your life free of discrimination

Whites are actively discriminated against both de jure (affirmative action, “hate speech” laws, selective prosecution, immigration policy) and de facto (“woke” culture, “woke” capital, racial double standards, etc.). This prevents the White “pursuit of happiness” – Whites are not allowed to have their own homelands or their own culture.

The right to control what happens to your own body and to make medical decisions for yourself

Whiteness itself – the White genotype and phenotype – is becoming de facto a crime. De jure eventually?

The right to freely exercise your religion and practice your religious beliefs without fear of being prosecuted for your beliefs

The right to be free from prejudice on the basis of race, gender, national origin, color, age or sex

Whites are discriminated against in every way.

The right to grow old

Elderly Whites are targeted for attack by younger Coloreds. Elderly Whites are denied vaccines, which are preferentially given to coloreds.

The right to a fair trial and due process of the law

Selective prosecution of Whites. The entire System is used de jure to politically persecute White activists. De facto persecution of Whites by extra-governmental actors who are protected by the government.

The right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment

The entire existence of Whites in “vibrant diversity” as part of the System is “cruel and unusual punishment.”

The right to be free from torture

See all above. Multiracialism and multiculturalism is torture. “Diversity training” and other forms of “woke” indoctrination are torture.

The right to be free from slavery

White taxpayers support Colored tax recipients – de facto slavery.

The right to freedom of speech

 Non-existent in Europe. Dying in America (de facto almost gone, de jure in jeopardy).

The right to freely associate with whomever you like and to join groups of which you'd like to be a part.

Freedom of association for Whites does not exist; in America, it has been eliminated by civil rights laws.

The right to freedom of thought

The right not to be prosecuted from your thoughts

In today’s “woke” dictatorship with its dogmatic enforced belief system, there is no freedom of thought for Whites.

We can therefore see that the list of individual rights, which should apply to Whites as a group, are being violated for Whites – as both individuals and as a group – making Whites into a persecuted stateless pariah people.

One can go further and assert that the group has rights specifically as a group that goes beyond rights derived from those of its constituent individuals. First, as a larger reservoir of individuals and of the genetic interests of those individuals, the survival and interests of the group must take precedence over any one individual, or small groups of individuals, within the group. Libertarians may object, but enforced military conscription throughout human history indicates an evolved preference for individual sacrifice – even if compelled – to service the interests of the greater number. Second, the group has emergent properties that go beyond a simple additive summation of the interests of each individual. A group can actualize a High Culture and has, or potentially can have, a civilizational destiny; individuals cannot be so described. Any grouping of atomized individuals does not constitute a High Culture, only the integrated group does so. A nation is, properly, an integrated group of an ethny, not a random constellation of individuals from any and all ethnies that happen to co-exist in the same territory. Thus, we can observe that a group has characteristics as a group that go beyond that of merely adding together sets of individual interests, each unrelated to the other.

So, to all the rights listed above are added to the group the right of interest prioritization over the individual as well as the right to actualize the group’s collective destiny.