Behold The Man

An evaluation of an evaluation: Sallis on Young on Nietzsche.

I’d like to comment on aspects of Julian Young’s philosophical biography of Friedrich Nietzsche.  Consistent with “fair use” scholarly criticism, a minuscule fraction of the work will be quoted here and analyzed.  This will not be a traditional book review, in which the entire work is scrutinized and put into the balance – suffice to say I think the book is mostly excellent and is recommended to those interested in such topics.  However, I will note that Young’s liberalism on many topics shines through clearly, which I found extremely distasteful (e.g., Young’s pro-feminism is pitiful and his attempts to legitimize Lou Salome’s sociopathic exploitation of beta orbiters are pathetic), although Young draws the line at attempts to have his “Fritz” portrayed as a closet homosexual.  I won’t get into the Cate plagiarism controversy.  I will say Young is much more honest about Nietzsche than was the Jew Walter Kaufmann (should we be surprised?) – indeed, after reading Young, I realized how badly I had been hoodwinked by Kaufmann’s mendacity (again – I’m shocked, shocked).

Instead, the point here is to focus on specific items of Nietzsche’s philosophy (and Young’s interpretation thereof) and put in into a perspective to those who may share my own sociopolitical inclinations. In the spirit of Nietzsche’s aphorisms, these will be very short analyses of specific snippets of text. Note that in some cases these are excerpts linked together and not direct quotes of intact paragraphs, where one sees sentences linked by “…” one should assume that considerable text has been deleted. These deletions have been carefully done so as to not change the meaning or context of the quoted material.  As always, I strongly urge the reader to obtain the original work and read it in its entirety themselves.  Footnote numbers have also been deleted from the quotes to avoid confusion.

All of the quotes should be ascribed to: Young, Julian (2011-07-27). Friedrich Nietzsche. Cambridge University Press. 

What is wrong with the mythless ‘motleyness’ of modernity?...The first symptom is loss of unity. Since the unity of a community, of a ‘people’, can only exist when individuals are gathered into the ‘maternal womb’ of a unified myth, there is, in modernity, no community, no homeland. Instead, all we have is a ‘wilderness of thought, morals, and action’, a ‘homeless wandering about’…the society driven by the frenzied quest for ‘experiences’, cheap thrills; for sex, drugs, rock and roll and ‘extreme’ sports….Without the (healthy) stress provided by an identity-defining ideal, one can only try to preserve oneself from boredom through the ever-diminishing returns of ever more exotic thrills.

That seems to me to be an accurate  description of, and criticism of, today’s rootless, deracinated, globalist multiculturalism, which replaces the organic solidarity of a folk community with the “cheap thrills” that came to the fore in the 1960s and has become amplified in today’s degeneracy.  By the way, “game” and the pursuit of sexual hedonism is part of this degeneracy, as is Randian “individualism,” “libertarianism” and any other of the “isms” that have come to define 2st century modernity.

In explaining why this is our overriding task, Nietzsche appeals, not, this time, to high-flown metaphysics, but rather to biology…So, concludes Nietzsche, mankind ought to seek out and create the ‘favourable conditions’ under which those great men can come into existence…Nietzsche here is appealing to a version of (social) Darwinism…And what he is appealing to, in particular, is the value of, in Darwinian language, the ‘random mutation’. According to evolution theory, he is observing, a species evolves into a ‘higher’ species when it produces a mutation which is better adapted to the current state of the environment. Because the mutations breed successfully whereas the remainder tend to die out before doing so, gradually the species evolves into a new species better adapted to thriving in the current environment. Because human beings and human societies belong, just like plants and animals, to the realm of biology, Nietzsche concludes, we ought to apply this same principle to society and so do everything possible to promote the appearance of ‘chance existences’, random mutations.

This interpretation by Nietzsche of course veers into the “naturalistic fallacy” but that “error” can be obviated by invoking values. There is nothing inherently wrong with choosing values that support a “social Darwinism” foundation for society. By so doing, Nietzsche also supports, at least indirectly, the viability of group selection (at least that promoted by human choice), and the competition between human cultures that forms the basis of such selection. I (and certain other sociobiological-oriented people( would argue that such has actually occurred in human history and is occurring today.  Also, anyone whose initial understanding of Nietzsche was malformed by exposure to Kaufmann’s Asiatic mendacity will find passages such as this quite refreshing.

On the Darwinian line of argument the great individual is again valuable only as a means, this time a means to the evolution of society as a whole to a ‘higher’ condition….

Once again, this is consistent with group evolution arguments. And, once again, all of Kaufmann’s Levantine flim-flam asserting that Darwinian interpretations of Nietzsche are a totally wrong misinterpretation are shown to be, at best, wrong, and at worst, intentionally mendacious.

Are we all consigned to slavery to create his ‘freedom from the necessity of earning a living’? Should all non-geniuses become coal-miners or sock-darners? Not so. Even ‘second and third rate talents’ can contribute to the task by preparing both ‘within’ and ‘without’ for the appearance of genius. Presumably the idea here is that the higher the general level of culture the more favourable are the conditions for the appearance of genius.

And today’s degenerate culture mitigates against the emergence of genius. Is that part of the plan?

…since a large gap between rich and poor causes envy and social unrest, the concentration of enormous wealth in private hands will be avoided. Businesses, in particular banks, that generate such wealth will be state-owned. This passage makes two things clear: that, at least in Wanderer, Nietzsche's ‘anti-socialism’ is in fact anti-communism, and that the social-democratic ideal of partial nationalisation of the means of production and exchange is something he actually endorsed.
 

That sounds a lot like national socialism and/or fascist corporatism to me. Why not call it as it is?

But everyone can, in a way that fits their expertise and station in life, contribute to the well-being of the community as a whole and in that way secure self-respect and their own kind of feeling of power: their own happiness, in other words.

Thus, to the “individualist” Nietzsche, self-expression and authenticity can be achieved by working to contribute to “the well-being of the community.” 

The positivist worldview offered a theory of the world of incredible power and efficiency in comparison with that which had preceded it. And that, surely, one can imagine Nietzsche saying, is some kind of evidence of truth. Creatures, that is to say, who are radically mistaken about the nature of the world tend to die out before reproducing. Conversely, those whose power over their environment enables them to survive and thrive are probably close to the truth… Nietzsche can never be certain that his metaphysics of will to power is true. What, then, is its intended epistemological status?...The best theory is that which ‘works’, which, in other words, gives us power over ourselves and our environment. Nietzsche's claim for the will to power – his, as he sees it, corrected and completed version of Darwinian science – is that it comprehends reality in a way that is more comprehensive and powerful than any rival theory. He would, I think, also add, as I suggested in discussing Dawn, that the fact that a theory ‘works’ well is evidence – less than completely conclusive evidence, to be sure, but still evidence – that it is true.

This is an important point. While Nietzsche denies that scientists can ever know the way reality really is, because reality is filtered through their human perceptions, nevertheless, for practical purposes, those closer to the truth will be vindicated through their ability to exert power over the environment and to survive. Hence, the power of science, and why science, properly applied, is different from metaphysics, from religion. If an asteroid or comet was hurtling toward the Earth, with the potential to wipe out all human life, religious faith and “praying to Jaysus” is not going to help. Science can detect the threat, and science has the potential to avert the threat. If two peoples are in a war to the death, and People A use thermonuclear weapons, ICBMs, nerve gas, mustard gas, and weaponized anthrax, and People B use "the power of prayer,” hopefully all sane people can predict total victory for People A.  Whether People A perceive “reality as it truly is” doesn’t matter, since they perceive it close enough to true reality to be useful for their ultimate interests.

It is, in other words, the ‘survival of the fittest’ in a competitive and, at least potentially, hostile environment. Nietzsche applies this theory to human society, which makes him a ‘social Darwinist’: he regards human societies as organisms subject to the same laws as organisms in general…a ‘universally binding…faith’ sometimes also ‘morality’ or ‘custom’. It is such a faith that constitutes the community as a community, orders the relations between individuals in such a way as to enable the social organism to function as an efficient survival machine.

Nietzsche: social Darwinism and group selection. Kaufmann: a despicable liar (or, simply, a Jew).

Without the social glue of a communal faith a society loses its capacity for collective action and becomes ripe for destruction, either through internal disintegration or through colonization by a more successful society. The principal means by which the community – or ‘herd’ – preserves conformity to communal faith consist in more or less crude forms of social ostracism. What makes this effective is the individual's basic need for community. ‘Even the strongest person…fears a cold look or a sneer on the face of those among whom he has been brought up. What is he really afraid of? Growing solitary’. Nietzsche calls this ‘the herd instinct’ in the individual. The ‘herd instinct’ has thus two aspects. On the part of the community it is the instinct to exert pressure on the individual to conform. And on the latter's part it is the instinct to give in to that pressure.

Thus, Nietzsche recognizes societal policing of free-riding, which critics of EGI seemingly are unable to understand (or, more accurately: they pretend to not understand).

In a Darwinian world the law is: mutate or die. The agents of such mutation are the non-‘herd’ types, those who resist the pressure to conform to current norms, free themselves from the chains of current morality: the ‘free spirits’. ‘The celebrated European capacity for constant transformation’ depends on such ‘malcontents’. China, on the other hand, Nietzsche claims, is a country in which large-scale discontent became extinct centuries ago, and with it the capacity for change. (Hence, presumably, its history of colonisation and exploitation by European powers, and later Japan.)
 

This is interesting in a couple of ways. First, we can consider that today, the dissident Right are the non-herd free spirits, who bring the new dawn, as opposed to the politically correct globalist herd animals. Second, note the anti-HBD assessment of China as a conformist, herd-like non-creative entity – an accurate description, since today’s “rise of China” is merely a default condition of them filling the niche space left by a dying, degenerate, multicultural “West.”

Thus, whereas the factory owner is mostly seen by his workers as nothing but ‘a cunning bloodsucking dog of a man’, the military leader is often treated with respect. The crucial point is that the leader should have some kind of nobility, should appear to be of a ‘higher race’ than the led. ‘The masses are basically prepared to submit to any kind of slavery provided that the superiors constantly legitimize themselves as higher, as born to command, through refined demeanour’.

Here we see another “fail” for the “movement’s” (affirmative action) “leadership.”  Nobility?  Higher race?  Laughable!

With the abruptness of a deranged, born-again Christian (as well, perhaps, as the relief of speaking after ten years of silence), Zarathustra spews out the sum of his decade of wisdom-gathering. Man, he shouts, is a ‘rope stretched between beast and superman’. The superman is the ‘meaning of the earth’. Beloved are those who take the dangerous path of dedicating themselves to making the world a ‘house for the superman’. Man needs an ‘ideal’. But since the supernatural is a delusion, we must reject all other-worldly ideals. Our ‘greatest hour’ is when we see that we fall as far short of the superman as the ape does of us.

The real meaning of the Earth: human over-coming, not worshiping a dead Jew on a stick.

This, then, is why the motleyness of European modernity threatens its ‘death’: lacking a shared ‘game plan’, it lacks the capacity for effective collective action, in particular, for action directed at its own preservation and expansion.

The diagnosis of multiculturalism and the cult of diversity killing the West.

Nietzsche takes it as self-evident that the death of European humanity would be a bad thing. Those with a more jaundiced, more guilty, view of the European tradition might think otherwise.

That’s great.  Is the latter idea Young’s view?  Why must it be mentioned?  Why must it be accepted as a viable alternative?  If the word “European” was replaced by “Jewish” or “African” would Young dare cite those who “might think otherwise?”  That I very much highly doubt.

Master morality was, then, self-focused. Slave morality, by contrast, was other-focused. It was based on hatred and fear of the slaves’ oppressors. So it was that the hate-filled word ‘evil’ replaced ‘bad’, the expression, merely, of contempt. In the ethical ‘revolt’ of the slaves the good–evil dichotomy came to replace the good–bad dichotomy of the masters. The hard qualities of the masters were given new names – ‘self-confidence’ becomes ‘arrogance’, ‘resoluteness’ becomes ‘ruthlessness’, and so on…The second disastrous consequence of the triumph of Christianity is that it ‘keeps the type “man” on a low…level’… It does this in two ways: by preserving life's ‘failures’ and by disabling its potential ‘successes’. It preserves failures on account of the supposed virtue of compassion. Compassion means that a Christianized culture preserves ‘too much of what should have perished’ Though there is no reason to think of the extermination camps, here, there is no getting away from the harshness of this view. What Nietzsche is talking about, I believe, is the eugenics – ‘breeding.’…Christian morality disables life's potential successes because it ‘throw[s] suspicion on delight in beauty, skew[s] everything self-glorifying, manly, conquering, autocratic, every instinct that belongs to the highest and best-formed type of “human”, twist[ing] them into uncertainty, crisis of conscience, self-destruction at the limit’.

Thus, we see a summary of a principled critique of Christianity – one that should be kept in mind as popes, priests, and other Christian religious figures speak out in favor of immigration, refuges, minority rights, and speak out against racialism, nationalism, and eugenics. Christianity: a creed for losers, for weaklings, for slaves.

…‘socialism’ (a term covering both social democracy and communism), and finally, and particularly vociferously, feminism. All these movements are applications of the doctrine of ‘equal rights’, which makes them ‘heirs’ to Christianity's doctrine of the equality of all souls before God.

Yes, indeed, all the leftist “isms” are derived from Christianity. Crush the infamy!

If Nietzsche treats ‘lower’ types as mere means, if he treats them as things rather than people, then he really is an immoral (and ontologically blind) thinker.

Once again, Young interjects his opinions as facts.

‘If we win’, he writes, ‘we have overcome the absurd boundaries between race, nation, and classes (Stände): there exists from now on only order of rank (Rang) between human beings.' The difference between rank and class is the difference between ability and birth. What Nietzsche seeks, as we shall see in detail in discussing The Antichrist, is a hierarchy not of blood but of natural ability and aptitude.

Obviously, we must vehemently disagree with Nietzsche here. While blood alone is not all, it is the prerequisite. The hierarchy must be confined to one people. Within that people, we have rank and hierarchy; outside the people, there should be nothing but enemies.  After all, didn’t Nietzsche also state elsewhere the importance of the organic solidarity of a culture?  How can that solidarity be maintained with elites consisting of alien peoples?  Consistent with this, Young reminds us:

As we have seen, in order to survive in a competitive, Darwinian environment, a community must have a morality which provides the ‘hardness, uniformity and simplicity’ of, as I put it, a shared ‘game plan.'.

A “shared game plan” requires shared blood, whether Nietzsche (and Young) want to admit it or not.

‘Woman as such’, the ‘eternal feminine’, lacks the capacity for ‘manly’ pursuits. Women have no concern for truth – their great talent is in the (slavish) practice of lying. They have no capacity for ‘enlightenment’ (rational objectivity) and so should be silent on religion and politics – and on the question of ‘woman as such’. Women do not even know how to cook, though they have been at it for millenni…Is this just a mass of prejudices – or, at best, ‘period errors’ – or is there a serious point mixed in with this, as it now seems, unintentionally comic rave?

Once again, Young interjects his liberal, feminist sensibilities here, smugly assuming we all consider Nietzsche’s reasonable views on the female to be “comic.”  No, Young, the idea of gender equality is what is indeed comic.

For ultimate value attaches not to the ‘tree of knowledge’ but rather to ‘the tree of life’.

If true, that is an endorsement of ultimate interests, of EGI, of Salterism. If promoting the interests of life is important, and if life is about genetic continuity (It is, insofar as we can tell), then ultimate value holds there. Would Young accept that argument?  I doubt it. Should he accept it?  Should you accept it?  Yes, most definitely.  After all, what use knowledge if not to promote the interests of life?  Then we see the next step – whose life?  Step by step we come to the racial nationalist EGI agenda.

The West is, then, in a parlous condition. In its ‘motley’ state it lacks the ‘hardness, uniformity and simplicity of form’ of a shared, as I called it, ‘game plan’ possession of which is necessary to survive and thrive in a competitive world. But the situation is not hopeless. For one thing, for all the difficulties it creates, the collapse of Christianity, since it made our culture sick, is fundamentally a cause for celebration. For another, we possess a secret ‘faith’, a vision of what should and must redeem us from the present and the past.

For the West to survive, the rotting corpse of Christianity must be swept away, and we must make way for the Overman High Culture.

…he will not support any anti-Semitic undertaking, he does not trust her any more, he hopes all the anti-Semites will leave Germany and join them, and he hopes that the Jews come to power in Europe.

This view of Nietzsche was unfortunate but nevertheless we must be honest: he was not a budding anti-Semitic Nutzi. Quite the opposite.  But that was the Nietzsche of the 1880s, a time of European world dominance. Would the Nietzsche of the 2010s be a radical racial nationalist national socialist?  Quite possibly.

What does ‘questioning’ the will to truth, turning it into an issue, mean for Nietzsche? It means elevating life, healthy life, into a higher value than truth. If self-deception, illusion, is what best promotes your psychic health that is what you should go for.

Ultimate interests over all?

However:

At the end of the story, therefore, the unconditional will to truth becomes the criterion of psychic health.

Salterians would argue that ultimate interests and EGI have the added advantage of being true (to the extent that we humans can perceive truth).

What the passage does, it seems to me, is to endorse modernity's unlimited will to power over both nature and human nature. It is one of those things which used to be considered ‘bad’ – ‘playing God’ – but is really good. And here, it seems, Nietzsche offers us a new ‘one goal’ to override all other goals, an ultimate goal to replace the ‘one goal’ of Christianity: making ourselves masters of the universe. A glance into the notebooks of the period makes this clear. So we read, for example, that ‘what is necessary’ in place of the old morality is a ‘reversal of values’ which will produce ‘a morality that has the intention of breeding a ruling caste – the future masters of the earth’. In The Gay Science Napoleon is admired for wanting to make Europe ‘mistress of the earth’, an admiration which incorporates the desire for the domination of the globe by European culture that goes back to Human, All-Too-Human.
 

That sounds a lot like Sallis’ Overman High Culture and Yockey’s Western Imperium to me. Of course, the despicable Young has to throw cold water over all of it:

Perhaps the best that can be said for him is that if he were alive now he would certainly classify the unlimited will to power as one of those things that used to be considered ‘good’ but is now ‘bad’.
 

Here, Young predictably gets it backwards by imposing his own liberal morality on Nietzsche.  I say the opposite: if alive today, Nietzsche would be disgusted at the weakness and worthlessness of European Man, he would be shocked that Europeans are letting themselves be colonized and dispossessed by inferior cultures, he would redouble his emphasis on ‘will to power,” but now give it more of an explicitly racial-cultural “blood and soil” basis.

Re:Twilight of the Idols:

What Is the Nature of Reality? The fourth of the work's eleven parts, which runs to half a page, is titled ‘How the True World Became a Fable’. There are six stages. First the ‘true’ (the term is of course ironic), supernatural world of ‘being’, the opposite of this natural world of pain and ‘becoming’, was immediately accessible to the sage's – Plato's – mental gaze. Then it became something to one had to wait for; Christianity postponed the true world, transmuted it into the future home of the virtuous. With Kant it receded further, since it could no longer be known to exist. Yet as a consoling hope and as something we had to believe in for morality to make sense, it lingered on in a twilight state. But then came the ‘cockcrow of positivism’, the thought that something unknown could hardly be consoling. ‘Gray morning’, Nietzsche's stage direction, as it were, reads at this point, ‘first yawn of reason, cockcrow of positivism’. This lead to the coup de grâce. Positivism, when it finally arrives, abolishes the true world (denies it, one might say, ‘rights of citizenship in science’). Nietzsche applauds from the sidelines: ‘Bright day; breakfast; return of good sense; Plato blushes in shame; pandemonium of all free spirits’. And now the conclusion arises that since there is no ‘true’ world, it makes no sense to call ‘this’ one a merely ‘apparent’ world. There is only one world and ‘this’ is it. As Ecce Homo puts the conclusion: the ‘true world’ is a ‘made up world’, so that what used to be called ‘the world of appearances’ is, in truth, ‘reality’.

An excellent summary of the nature of reality. 

And Nietzsche's idea, here, looks to be something like what we would now call genetic determination: the idea that an individual ‘is’ the sum of the genes inherited from both parents, which they have inherited from their parents, and so on. Notice that this idea explains Nietzsche's continued belief in the importance of eugenics.

But Nietzsche by no means rejects the notion of freedom as such. ‘My idea of freedom’, he writes, is that it is a matter of ‘being responsible for oneself’, maintaining one's ‘distance’, ‘becoming indifferent to hardship’, ‘being prepared to sacrifice people to your cause, yourself included’. To be free means that ‘the instincts which take pleasure in war and victory have gained control over the other instincts’, the instinct to ‘happiness’, for instance, happiness, at least, as conceived by ‘grocers, Christians, cows, females, Englishmen, and other democrats’. Freedom is not a birthright. Rather one ‘becomes free’ by being a ‘warrior’ on the internal battlefield of the soul. The degree of freedom one possesses is measured by the degree of ‘resistance one has overcome, the amount of effort it costs to stay on top.'

Indeed, as I have often said: superiority is not anyone’s birthright; it needs to be earned. Likewise, freedom. Thus, this view differs from mainstream “movement” “thought” in which all positive human traits are embodied by certain ethnies – Bill Clinton and Angela Merkel as superhuman demigods.  Such a laughable image is directly derived from “movement” values.

As I emphasised earlier, a great deal of Nietzsche's philosophy has been a preparation for this validation of Dionysian feeling, for validation of the idea that one's ‘true’ life is universal, that individual life is ‘untrue’: the persistent theme of the individual as the summation of the causal history of the universe to date, the individual as nothing substantial but rather a temporary conglomeration of forces that will soon reconfigure itself, a momentary ‘wave in the necessary wave-play of becoming’.
 

But is this universalism the same as that preached by the Left?  It cannot be so:

One values one's enemies, Nietzsche continues, because one only discovers one's identity when faced with opposition. This is as true of individuals as of political parties.

Having enemies is a bit inconsistent with the sort of universalism promoted by the Left.  If opposition is so important to Identity, then Nietzsche’s universalism is not that of globalist multiculturalism, but instead more akin to William Pierce’s cosmotheism.

So what, then, does Nietzsche have to say about such ‘healthy monsters’? Do they not represent a counter-example to his claim that no healthy person knowingly does evil, that a well-formed person, a ‘happy’ one, never knowingly performs harmful actions? I think not. For Borgia, Napoleon, the Vikings, though healthy and happy, are not, in Nietzsche's sense, ‘well-formed’.

That is an effective answer to retarded Christian criticism that Nietzsche would support serial killers, that Ted Bundy was a Nietzschean superman. What should one do with such stupidity?

It is no mere coincidence that, with the arrival of German power, German spirit, German culture, has disappeared. For, as we know, there is an ‘either–or’ choice to be made. If – either as an individual or a nation – one expends all one's energy on ‘economics, world commerce…power, and power politics’, one will have none left for culture.

This seems to be a Spenglerian argument and one that I do not necessarily agree with.

Notice the rationale, here, for authoritarian conservatism – as his reviewers thought, a kind of ‘Junker philosophy,' for all Nietzsche's loathing of Bismarck. Without it, the capacity for resolute collective action disappears, so that the community degenerates and eventually disappears.

Hello, multiculturalism!

Whatever morality the new society possesses, it will have differential rights and duties for different kinds of people. Though hierarchical, it will be the opposite of homogeneous.

This puts the mature Nietzsche firmly on the political Right.  Although the part on "the opposite of homogeneous" shouldn't imply racial diversity.

Looked at psychologically the Jews are the people with the toughest life force; when transplanted into impossible conditions they took sides with all the instincts of décadence…out of the most profoundly shrewd sense of self-preservation – not because they were dominated by these instincts, but because they sensed that these instincts had a power that could be used to prevail against ‘the world’.
 

Interesting how the anti-anti-Semite Nietzsche, through his pursuit of (subjective?) truth, found his way to the same criticisms of Jews thoughtful and honest people make today.

The real Jesus was no metaphysician, had no supernatural beliefs whatsoever. For him, ‘the kingdom of heaven’ is a ‘state of the heart’. It lies neither ‘above the earth’ nor ‘after death’ but is achieved here and now in the practice of universal love. Jesus taught by parable and by example. His death was not an expiation of human sins but rather the ultimate demonstration of his doctrine of nonresistance. He was, in short, a kind of Buddhist, Buddhism being also a non-metaphysical life-practice engendered by hypersensitivity to pain. Jesus represented a ‘Buddhistic peace movement.' This true, original Christianity represents a ‘life that is still possible today, for certain people it is even a necessity’. Possible and in the 1960s, surely, actual.
 

The deepest essence of Christianity: a 1960s-style, hippie-like renunciation of force, of will, of power – the sissification of humanity.  Guess which race has swallowed that poison?

Young summarizes Nietzsche’s criticism of Christianity as outlined in The Antichrist; there is no need to rehash all of that once again.  However, this is interesting:

Sixth, modern Christian theologians lie through their teeth. They know ‘there is no “God” anymore’, that the ‘God-hypothesis’ is incompatible with all the other furniture of the modern, educated mind. Everyone knows that there is no ‘last judgment’, no ‘sin’, and no ‘redeemer’, yet everything goes on as before. It is notable that the ‘Law against Christianity’ that concludes The Antichrist reserves the harshest punishments for liberal Christians, on the grounds that ‘the criminality of being Christian increases with one's proximity to science’.

I believe that the higher one goes up any religious hierarchy (at least in the West), the less degree of true belief in the metaphysics there is.  Thus, the pious Christian washerwoman truly believes Jesus was the Son of God, believes it all in every last detail, while the Popes and Bishops and Cardinals know better – it is all a “happy fiction” to impose Christian morality on the masses.

‘The Antichrist’ delivers his judgment that Christianity is the worst disaster ever to have befallen the human race. In promulgating his concluding ‘Laws against Christianity’ he condemns it to having all its priests either expelled or imprisoned, along with all preachers of chastity. All its churches are to be razed to the ground with farms for poisonous snakes erected on their sites (‘holocaust’ memorials, as it were).
 

Excellent, excellent: exactly what we need.  Root out the Christian disaster, destroy it, and salt the earth under it so the poisonous brew of self-destruction can never rise again.

…the superman ‘is a superman specifically when compared to the good ’ – he stands ‘super’, above, their morality. Nietzsche adds, recalling the Genealogy's point that most free spirits will be ‘martyred’ by the forces of social conservatism, that ‘the good and just would call [Zarathustra's]…superman a devil.’

The racial nationalist as a “White devil evil supremacist” – would Young agree with that?  Young of course is very choosy as to which of Nietzsche’s pronouncements in his (insane) last letters were sane or not; thus:

Entirely sane, too, is the idea that war can only finally be overcome through the abolition of national and dynastic egoisms, an abolition that requires European unification and, in the end, world government. These ideas, Nietzsche's cosmopolitanism and his understanding that only the abandonment of armed nationalism can produce genuine peace, are paragons of sanity…

Young agrees with those sentiments, so they are – of course! – “paragons of sanity.”  Is this fellow Young really a serious academic?

…it follows that morals are just, as it were, an instruction manual for the ‘preservation and growth’ of either of an individual or a community.
 

Salterian morals as the basis for the (re)growth of the European community.

In a nutshell, the lesson Jünger took from Nietzsche was: If you cannot mould the world to fit your morality you must mould your morality to fit the world.

The Left tries to alter reality to conform to ideology; the Right tries to conform ideology to conform to reality.  Of course, Young waves away The Will to Power as just a misuse of Nietzsche’s notes by his sister.  Maybe it was, but there nonetheless are underlying themes there consistent with his overall mature philosophy – which Young actually is later forced to admit.  Nietzsche was not a Nazi, but a very embryonic form of Nazi?  Perhaps. Certainly a Nietzsche around today, observing the nightmarish hell of multiculturalism, would likely have shifted much farther to the right. Of course, liberals would have asserted that the world wars and the “holocaust” would have shifted “Fritz” to the left, but why discuss the past rather than today’s present? 

In Young’s favor, he does critique Nietzsche favoring a “will to power” over a “will to life,” and he also critiques Nietzsche’s later misunderstanding of Darwinism (Yockey made similar mistakes):

Darwin's theory is not a theory of cultural evolution, and in any case he claims not that species become more ‘perfect’ but only that they become more adaptive.

Another example of Young the political/social activist being unable to separate his leftist morality from an academic work is the following:

Nietzsche's heart, then, is in the right place. Violence, brutality, and barbarism ought to be expelled from human life.

Question for Young: is the ongoing biological and cultural genocide and destruction of Europeans a manifestation of “violence, brutality, and barbarism?”  If you say no, what justification can you have?

And here is an amusing aside:

Almost from the beginning, the Försters’ Paraguayan venture found itself in deep trouble. Based on Aryan ideology rather than skill and planning, it soon found itself short of water and, with no roads or railways, unable to transport the timber that was to have been its economic foundation to any market.
 

Der Movement in a nutshell!  Affirmative action in action!

And here we see Young the plagiarist further discredit himself as a serious academic:

(In the 1930s she welcomed many of the Nazi bigwigs, including Hitler himself, to the house (see Plate 32) – their stench somehow remains to this day. There is no trace of Nietzsche.)

Can such things be possible?  Is this what Western “scholarship” has fallen to?  And then:

Though Nietzsche's philosophy was likely produced by a manic-depressive (as, probably, were the works of Plato, Newton, Mozart, Hölderlin, Coleridge, Schumann, Byron, Van Gogh, Geog Cantor, Winston Churchill, Silvia Plath, John Lennon, Leonard Cohen and many other great human beings), there is nothing ‘pathological’ about it – apart from the views on women.

Note the last phrase.  Young, you are absolutely despicable. Have you no shame?  I guess Cate would say: no.

Young's interpretation that Nietzsche's mental breakdown was completely psychological is not the last word on the subject.  It may be true - however, Young is very selective of the physiological mechanisms he refutes - essentially restricting it to syphilis and a brain tumor. Looking at the biomedical literature, one can see alternative neurological diagnoses.  We cannot know which is "true" (Nietzsche I suspect would approve), but, nevertheless, one should show a bit of reserve instead of making dogmatic statements on the matter.

After the Deluge: A Post-National Future for the White Race

Assume the White Man has lost.  What next?

Introduction:  Hard times are upon us. The type of invasion of Europe predicted in The Camp of the Saints is occurring today, not in some distant future, and the pathologically altruistic response of weak, deracinated Europeans is exactly as outlined in that novel.  In Germany, the monstrous harridan Merkel is behaving as an inverted anti-Hitler, presiding over the genocide of her own people. In the UK, the sight of one dead Syrian child invokes an outpouring of compassionate action that hundreds of sexually molested English children in Rotherham failed to elicit. The navies of Italy and Greece are dedicated to saving the invaders instead of repelling them, to facilitating the invasion instead of stopping it. Mainstreaming nationalist Orban of Hungary makes bombastic statements, while migrants riot in the streets of Budapest, and as invaders make a mockery of his pathetically porous cheap chicken wire “razor fence.”  In France, mainstreaming heroine Marine Le Pen is more concerned with denouncing her own father than in standing as a new Joan of Arc against the invading hordes. Everywhere in Europe are the sights and sounds of surrender, of a people so fecklessly reckless (or is it recklessly feckless?) that they sacrifice their patrimony without the slightest hint of resistance whatsoever. In America, the System has long ago given up any pretense of guarding the border, and floods of illegal aliens join the unending stream of “legal” immigrants.  And the only leading Presidential candidate who says otherwise is an abrasive buffoon whose main concern is showing he does not wear a toupee, and who wants a “big fat open door for legal immigrants.”  Facts are facts: majority-White nation states are doomed if the present trends continue. What could come next?  What should come next?  What is the post-national future for a stateless White race that will not have any majority-White nations to call their own?  What to do?  How to survive?  Is there a contingency plan?

There are those who will not be happy with a discussion of such a scenario. The “hard-core” “SuperHitler1488” types, sitting in front of their computers, with a toothbrush moustache crudely hand drawn on their upper lips with black marker, will rail against this “defeatism” and will proudly proclaim their “willingness to fight” (after they watch the latest movie or football game); the concern trolls will tell us all we need to do is follow Amren-style mainstreaming for another quarter-century and all will be well; the “hate the messenger” sweaty obsessives will object to the message primarily because I am the one delivering it.

Nevertheless, this must be discussed. Contingency plans need to exist.  A race considered “superior” by some, with much commentary about “future time orientation” and “planning and discipline” – you would expect the nationalist leadership of such a race to be very seriously considering alternative future scenarios and how to strategically prepare for, and deal with, each. Perhaps such planning is occurring, somewhere hidden from the view of “small-fry” such as myself, who dares not intrude upon the majestic thoughts of the mighty titans striding across the racial nationalist landscape of today. If such planning is indeed taking place, I applaud the initiative and wish it all the best. The problem is that I really do not believe anything of the sort is taking place. The inept “quota queens” of the “movement” are, I’m sure, mired in their foolishness and fantasies, which is why, in fact, we are in the trouble that we face today.  Decades of complete uselessness does indeed incur a price on the inability of Whites to deal with the racial crisis.

Discussion: Therefore, imagine a scenario in which the USA is majority non-White, many of the major nations of Western Europe are majority non-White, other European nations are rapidly headed for similar status, Whites are a subaltern minority in what used to be their nations and homelands, a minority ruled by sneering aliens and step-and-fetchit White traitors. The grand dream of a White resistance to “turn the tide before it is too late” has failed to come to pass. The mainstreaming nationalists have failed to cash in on their groveling slithering toward the political center. The game is up and the White Man has lost. What then?

This is hard to answer without knowing the details of the situation. Are Whites still a plurality if not a majority?  Are all the non-White populations allied against the Whites?  Do law and custom still allow some degree of White resistance?  Are there any majority-White nations still in existence and what is their level of power and their commitment to a racial resistance?  These questions, and many others, need to be considered as possibilities. And, given how pathetically masochistic and delusional Whites are, we need to ask if, even at that late date, with the failures of multiculturalism on display for all to see, is there yet a significant fraction of Whites who “buy into” racial nationalism and finally realize the folly of pathological altruism?

Some may invoke the ethnocentric model of cohesive Jewish Diaspora group evolutionary strategies, as outlined in Kevin MacDonald’s works, as one possible model to follow for Whites who find themselves effectively equivalent to a stateless, diaspora people. There is much to say in favor of this, to an extent, although I note that the large amount of admixture which occurred with Jews at the beginning of their diaspora would be unacceptable for European preservationism, although the later stress on endogamy of course is exemplary.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I will suggest an approach based at least in part on Codreanu’s Legionary movement. One could envision a pan-European, trans-national movement, highly elite, comradely and collectivist in orientation, with an emphasis on productive action, creating a higher form of man, with a defined style of living.  In a sense, this legion would be analogous to some of the trans-national and pan-European crusading orders of the past as well as recreating the best aspects of Codreanu’s movement, adjusted for modern times (e.g., pan-European, rejecting universalist ethos, etc.). All of the differences between Codreanu’s movement and the failed racial nationalist “movement” of today (particularly the American variant) that I discussed in my book review (linked to above) would be relevant here: all the best of Codreanu’s movement would be embraced and all the flotsam and jetsam of contemporary racial and ethnic nationalism would be absolutely eschewed. Such a movement would provide the elite leadership to the stateless masses of the world-wide White minority, guiding Whites through the dangers inherent in their status as a people without any nation states of their own. Such a movement would help to bind Whites worldwide in a brotherhood of solidarity – while of course absolutely rejecting White traitors – and will draw a hard line against any miscegenation between ethnic Europeans and those newcomers who have invaded White lands. With this Legion at the head, Whites – or at least racially conscious Whites – would be bound to each other through ties of race and culture and of a shared history, as well as of shared problems and the shared sacrifices necessary for survival. While respecting and preserving the distinctiveness that exists between different European groups, and honoring the histories of the lost nations of Europe, this Legion and the masses it leads will absolutely reject the intra-European divisiveness that led the race and civilization to their sorry state (and the sorry state we are in right now, already, even before the final defeat).  Faced with existential threats to race and civilization, promotion of retrograde blood feuds among Europeans would be considered treason or madness, and treated as such (I would argue this should be applied today as well, and if it was, perhaps the scenario discussed here would not have to occur at all).  Just as Codreanu’s movement aimed at creating a new type of Romanian, the movement described here would aim at creation of a new type of European, a change in mind, a change in attitude, a change of spirit.  In the fires of defeat, a new type of White Man will be forged to deal with the dangers of new realities, realities created by behavior that would be, finally, recognized as defective and rejected. No more pathological altruism, no more surrender, no more universalist ethos, no more groveling to the world of color while fighting fellow Whites – no more stupidity and no more error. It will take a special kind of elite to do these things, and that is what is proposed here.

Now, of course, I believe we should be doing off of this this now, to prevent the fate of dispossession from occurring in the first place. Indeed, I believe we should do this even in the event of a total White racial victory, not only to prevent the racial crisis from ever happening again, but also simply because it is the right thing to do, especially after World Wars I and II.  In the end, this was the over-riding objective of the currently defunct Legion Europa project – a project which, in the last analysis, ran afoul of the “movement’s” affirmative action program. Thanks, “movement.”

An aside: I must say this to those who champion petty nationalism, who believe that narrow ethnic nationalism is the key to survival: now is as good as time as any to see your thesis demonstrated. Various European ethnies still have control of their nation states, they are still the majority, and in certain European nations, ethnic nationalist political parties exist. I suggest, I urge, I implore for these ethnic nationalists to use the power of narrow ethnic appeal to stop the invasion of Europe.  While that would not prove that ethnic nationalism is the way of the future, and would not prove it superior to racial nationalism, it would at least prove that ethnic nationalism has some utility, that is has sufficient power to at least temporarily arrest the demographic eclipse, the outright invasion, of the relevant narrow ethnies such nationalisms are concerned with. The time to do that is now. If you cannot even do that, if narrow petty nationalism cannot even motivate an ethny in the midst of an existential crisis, then what good does it have at all?

Summary: If and when Europeans become effectively stateless, when they loss control of all the institutions they have built, then the only thing they will be able to depend upon will be each other. The only thing that will ensure survival is each other. The only thing that can hold out the promise of taking back, or creating, nation states for themselves, is each other. It would be optimal to learn that lesson now, before the final Fall of the West, but if the only way to learn is through the bitter experience of total dispossession, so be it. If World Wars I and II were not sufficient lessons, and apparently they were not, more painful and humiliating lessons are just around the corner.

Conclusion: This essay is in no way meant as any sort of comprehensive analysis of this question; it is instead merely meant to “wake up” relevant individuals and groups to the necessity to ask the question and come up with some answers.  However, in the process of doing so, I outline, in very broad terms, one possible approach – the Legionary elite leadership approach - to consider as a possibility in dealing with a post-national White future.

For My Legionaries

Book review.

I’d like to make some comments on Codreanu’s For My Legionaries, now available in a new edition, with added background information and new photos. This book has already been reviewed in detail several times, so, rather than writing an overall review here, I will simply comment on specific aspects of the book and of Codreanu’s movement.

Observers of the modern scene observe that the typical White man, soft and weak, smiles ingratiatingly to friend and foe alike, and is not taken seriously by anyone. There is truth to that; thus, it is refreshing to see in this book photos of stern-faced and serious hard-Right men, ready for battle, with no quarter (and no smiles!) given the enemy.  Also interesting is the comparison between the Romanian phenotypes and that of a group of Jews also shown in the book, the contrast, reflecting different racial types, is very clear.

The interesting thing is how similar Codreanu’s complaints about the Jews were, not only compared to Hitlerism, but to what today's WNs assert.  Jewish “experts” would tell us this is due to the “common pathologies of anti-Semitic myths.” Another, more economical, explanation is that these are all common reactions to actual Jewish behavior, real-life behavior consistent over time and place.  For example, Codreanu noted that when (in the few years after the end of WWI) the major threat to the Romanian state came from Jewish-led communists, then the major Jewish newspapers and organizations in Romania were hostile to the state and its authority.  Later, as the state became increasingly pro-Jewish, and as the major threat to the state’s authority came from Codreanu and the far-Right, suddenly Romania’s Jews became easy “patriots” supporting the state and its authority from the "terroristic fascist hooligans."  If that all sounds familiar, consider the American situation. During the 1960s counter-culture, the Jewish-led radical left mounted a full scale sociopolitical assault against traditional America, against the “fascist pigs” of the Establishment, against all forms of authority, dissolving and mocking the ties of patriotism that held the nation together.  Fast forward to the America of more recent decades, where Jews are now a leading force in the Establishment, the driving force of the anti-White multicultural morass, now they are “neoconservatives,” wrapping themselves in the flag as they berate “unpatriotic isolationists,” “far-right subversives,” “White supremacist terrorists,” “anti-government militias” and the like.  In the past, Jewish radicals opposed the “fascist FBI," today, Jewish “watchdog groups” consult with the FBI and train local police forces. Oy vey, the hypocrisy!

It is also enlightening how similar “our” elites are from one era to the next, and from one nation to the next. That the Romanian elites of Codreanu’s time sided with Jews and other aliens against their own people mirrors what occurs throughout the White World today, and is yet another indication that these elites need to be replaced (more on “elites” below), and that “working within the system” is a long-term impossibility.

In the “movement” division between “Vanguardists” and “Mainstreamers,” Codreanu’s elite and radical Legion were obviously and definitely Vanguardists.  However, since these two approaches are not entirely orthogonal, Codreanu did attempt to reach out to the masses.  There is nothing about the “Vanguard” approach that says that the masses need to be eschewed; the difference is how it is done, for what purpose, and with what attitude.  While Mainstreamers allow the masses to exert leadership, in that Mainstreamer strategy is to follow the lead of the masses and tailor the ideology to fit current tastes and trends, in order to “win elections” and “have a mass appeal,” in contrast, the Vanguardists insist on being the leaders and teachers, with the masses being in the position of followers and students.  Thus, in the Vanguard approach, the masses never set the tone and never dictate ideology; it are the masses who must adjust and compromise toward the Movement, not the other way around.

Another major philosophical, political, worldview split in the “movement” (besides the usual infighting between pan-Europeanists and Nordicists, atheists vs. Christians vs. pagans) is that between conservatives and radicals.  The conservative school is exemplified by the HBD faction, by race-mixers who preach “working within the system” and who label those even slightly to their right as “latrine flies,” Judeophilic conservatives who brag about all the “sweet” business deals they’ve consummated, and, of course, Jews like Michael Hart.  Indeed, Hart’s vision is the archetype of the conservative “race-realist” worldview: a multiracial (!) “White separatist (sic!) state,” which would include Jews and Asians, with a ruling meme of HBD “race-realism”) (i.e., Jew/Asian IQ worship), excluding Negroes (but not much else), with a “laisses-faire” economic system (i.e., ethnocentric Jews and Asians using predatory capitalism to exploit Whites).  Thus, the conservative “racialist” future is much like modern America, albeit with no Negroes, no social safety net, and a ruthless ruling elite of plutocratic Jeurasians.

The radicals on the other hand, fascists in the broad sense of the word, want a complete re-ordering of society, much greater racial homogeneity, and a rejection of the sort of plutocratic and aristocratic elites who’ve caused the race problem with their selfishness and utter stupidity. This group includes radical national socialists who take the “socialist” part of that political identity seriously, as well as the Codreanu school of thought, which made remaking men a pre-requisite to remaking society. The radicals do not want a superficial “quick fix,” but rather a more permanent rebirth of values and structures that will ensure that the same mistakes are not made over and over again. As is clear, Codreanu’s movement and its emphasis on the New Man, squarely sits among the radicals, and it must be note that, while rejecting communism, the Legion also rejected predatory capitalism and plutocracy, and fought for social justice and a “fair shake” for Romanian workers. Such terms as “social justice” and “rights for workers” would no doubt cast a chill on the conservatives and their “sweet deals,” and this helps to clarify some of the differences between the two groups.

On pages 254-259 of this edition are two sub-chapters by Codreanu entitled Dangers That Threaten a Political Movement and The Critique of the Leader – these pages alone are worth the cost of the entire book.  Somehow, by writing about Romanian nationalism of the post-WWI period, Codreanu also envisioned and predicted the pathetic failures – and some of the reasons for those failures - of the American “movement” of the period 1945-Present.  It’s all there – the inability to recognize and weed out infiltrators, agent provocateurs, incompetents, freaks, and defectives; the desperation for followers that means that anyone who meets the minimum criteria for membership and who professes any superficial allegiance is accepted into the very heart of the group, no questions asked; the inability to cut out/remove “gangrenous” elements before they infect the entire group; defects in character of leadership, leaders who are uninspiring, who do not know how to lead, who procrastinate and waste endless opportunities (how many Professor Cuzas have we had in the “movement”?) – the list goes on.  Read those pages and you’ll recognize the American “movement” in all its tragicomic pitifulness. You’ll also recognize a number of “movement” blogs/websites that have been destroyed because of their inexplicable inability to recognize outright (in some cases, virtually self-declared) frauds and trolls, sites whose “accept one and all” attitude have led to the sorts of rampant infections Codreanu warned about in this book.

Also, starting on page 289 are two sub-chapters entitled The Beginnings of Legionary Life and Our Program, which are also of great value and are must reading. Of particular interest is that the Legionary Movement, as opposed to the “movement,” did not recruit. They simply established their way of living, performed their activities, and those attracted to that lifestyle, those drawn to the Legionary life, came to them. And, if of good character, they were accepted, and only of they performed up to standards and only of the Legionary life was acceptable to them, they were retained. And once accepted, once a part of the Legionary “nest,” the Legionary found himself in a comradely collectivist environment of like-minded persons following this way of living, not a rigid “Fuhrer principle” “movement” garbage dump of freakishness, procrastination, and incompetence. Note I use the phrase “way of living” to describe the Legionary “program” because that is precisely what it was: not an “official program” of detailed policies and memes, no “movement” stupidities with their invented sci-fi/fantasy “racial histories,” calipers, “admixture ratios,” dumb mantras, defective memes, ideological frameworks as flimsy as a house of cards. The Legionary “program” was to create a new type of Romanian, a New Man, to act, to become, to exert leadership within the national community - not to collect a bunch of bozos calling themselves “Superhitler1488aryanbloodssmanlonewolfultranaziswastika88148814,” and/or folks with a documented history of mental illness, and/or obvious trolls with a documented history of blog-wrecking, or any other flotsam and jetsam of “movement” detritus, and then give these people “the keys to the kingdom” and then watch your blog flounder, your group files end up in the hands of “watchdog” groups, a quarter-century of “activism” yielding zero results, or any other typical “movement” outcome. Also, reading the Legion’s history, one notes for the record that many of their enemies and traitors ended up dead. Now, that last comment is NOT meant as any sort of advocacy to violence or any sort of thing, far from it – it is simply a statement of historical fact. Legionaries would sacrifice themselves – often on their own initiative – for the cause, and NOT by some moronic stupidity of shooting up a church or movie house, but by the specific targeting of their very public enemies. Again, that’s simply a statement of fact and not advocacy or promotion of anything. I also note that the more the “movement” talks about “eschewing defectives,” the more defectives of the types noted above are handed those keys and are welcomed with open arms. The “movement” is a joke; the Legionary Movement was of deadly seriousness.

I also note that the devoutly Christian Codreanu was forced to admit that most Romanian priests were openly hostile to the vehemently pro-Christian Legionary Movement. The great love that Traditionalists have for Christianity is an unrequited love, indeed.

Toward the end of the book Codreanu wrote a critique of democracy that ranks with Yockey’s own fine analysis of that subject.  Codreanu dissects the unsuitability of democracy to solve national problems and provide national leadership.  He asserts that an elite, which rises based on ability and personal qualities, is required.  How exactly is the elite chosen?  If a national elite already exists, it must choose its successor, and do so by confirming for leadership those who have proven themselves worthy. What if there is no pre-existing nationalist elite?  How does the process begin?  Codreanu writes…the real elite is born out of war with the degenerate elite. In other words, the founding elite of the national state is formed by those who have waged war against the degenerate elites of the anti-nationalists. Codreanu not only rejects democratically elected elites but, also (and interestingly from a movement that was so pro-monarchy) hereditary elites; indeed, Codreanu cogently observes that the replacement of an original elite of merit by elites of heredity (i.e., the original nobility earn their status through war and politics and then degenerates into a hereditary caste) is what caused the democratic revolutions to begin with. Analogous to my own statement that superiority must be earned and is not a birthright of any individual, group, or ethny, Codreanu proposes an elite of merit and ability, one that is rejuvenated by fresh blood each generation.  Such analyses demonstrate that Codreanu the man of action was also a solid practical political theorist.  

Codreanu also asserted that the movement must move on three levels: the individual, the national collective, and the nation throughout the ages, and each preceding level must accept the preeminence of the next highest level, with the nation over time (what we today would focus on as ethny or race) being of the highest level of importance.

Although I have come out in favor of so-called “democratic multiculturalism” and I also agree with calls to use the judicial system against the System, reading Codreanu’s book reminds us that, ultimately, power prevails.  Time and time again the Legionaries were in the right, sometimes doing nothing but building a home or growing vegetables in a garden, or holding a meeting for which they obtained official approval, and they were attacked, arrested, and beaten by the police and military authorities, and their perfectly legal meetings shut down (Tudor's summary of the Legion's history notes some examples, as does Codreanu's letter to Prime Minister Vaiva-Voevod, the latter found in pages 428-432).  In America (but not Europe), there is “freedom of speech” and “freedom of assembly,” but with anti-nationalist NGOs (often with government approval or even cooperation) repressing activism (how many conferences have been cancelled due to NGO pressures and threats?) and with social pricing, are we really any better off than Codreanu’s group?  I can argue that we are worse off, since at least the Legionary Movement had the advantage of a sympathetic judiciary.  Indeed, there were cases in which Codreanu and Mota actually shot people – Codreanu himself shot and killed a government official – and they were acquitted!  Contrast that to, say, the legal persecution of an innocent and non-violent Matt Hale and we can indeed wonder if, even with all the persecutions of the Legion, we are in fact worse off than they were.

I would like to end by also saying that the additional explanations and histories given by Bolton and Tudor were useful contributions to this volume (in particular, Tudor's summary, The Doctrine of the Legion, in pages 452-459), and, finally, that I was impressed by Codreanu himself, a man of action who was able to express practical political truths in a understandable manner, in the midst of his busy schedule of real-world on-the-ground activism.

There is, among all those in various parts of the world who serve their people, a kinship of sympathy, as there is a kinship among those who labor for the destruction of peoples. - Corneliu Codreanu