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!

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.

The New Man

“Corneliu, make out of our country a country as beautiful as the sun, powerful and obedient to God.”

- Ion Mota

Readers of my work know that I have a long-standing interest in the Romanian Legionary Movement, its leader Codreanu, as well as prominent followers such as Ion Mota.  I have long understood that the Legionaries hit upon a core fundamental idea that escapes today’s activists – that there is something more important than ideologies, political programs, memes, and dogma. This fundamental idea is improving the human material upon which you will build your movement. Renewal of self, renewal of the moral capital of the individual, creation of The New Man, all of this is essential to ultimate victory. Trying to establish a movement on a foundation of human detritus will quickly lead to complete collapse, as we see today.

I have read the following interesting article:

Valentin Sandulescu - „Fascism and its Quest for the 'New Man:' The Case of the Romanian Legionary Movement,” Studia Hebraica, No. 4, (2004), pp. 349 - 361.

Let’s consider relevant excerpts from that article, and see how these can be interpreted in light of the current situation. In all cases, emphasis added.

An innovative development in fascist studies, based on the works of historians such as George L. Mosse, Stanley Payne and Roger Griffin, offers one of the most in-depth understandings of fascism as a political phenomenon of the twentieth century. This approach focuses on the revolutionary and positive programmatic claims of fascism. It asserts that fascism developed an ideology and not just a reactionary movement, and identifies the goals of that ideology with the revolutionary will for a complete regeneration aimed at creating a new order and a “new man.” 

This is the key to understanding what fascism really is.

It thus attempts to explain fascism’s success and makes it easier to distinguish it from other forms of authoritarian rule.

This is an important point I’ve stressed in my writing, contra to some Type Is, writing for alleged “metapolitical” blogs, who foolishly asserted (a la the Left) that any and all authoritarian rightist regimes and movements are “fascist.”  True fascism has a revolutionary palingenetic core.  Franco’s Spain was not “fascist.”

The aim of the Legion was to educate this “new man” – omul nou – the only one capable of building the new, regenerated Romania. 

Likewise, I am convinced that only a higher quality activist, The New Man of today, will be capable of achieving racial nationalist goals, through a new, regenerated Movement.

Not control over the means of production was important, but the ‘new man’ about whom all fascists talked. He was man made whole once more, aware of his archetype and of those with whom he shared it, and activist in that he was not afraid to join in a revolution which would make society correspond to the longings of his soul.

Well said.

One may consider that the creation of what fascists termed the “new man” was the final goal of their cultural revolution. This final, revolutionary and utopian goal was seen as a necessity, because it was presented as a cure for a deep state of societal crisis. Therefore, the fascist project was based on a palingenetic myth, the idea of the nation’s rebirth through the creation of a “new man.” Historians such as Roger Griffin see the palingenetic myth as the core myth of fascist ideology, and the driving force behind the movement. 

Indeed, The New Man should be at the absolute core of any palingenetic movement.  Without the correct human material, all endeavors will ultimately fail.

In this regard, taming the feelings of revolt manifested by the young generation since the end of the war, became a major goal for Codreanu. In his desire to avoid “classical” forms of political action, Codreanu envisaged a revolutionary platform for his movement, proposing a radical transformation of the country by reforming its human component.

First you reform the people, starting with the activists, then you use that human material to build a new society.  Today’s “movement” believes it can build a new society with human trash, and then “fix things” later on.  Delusion.

The first stage (1927 – 1933) was one of inner clarifications. Still indebted intellectually to their former mentor, A.C. Cuza, Codreanu and his followers were more preoccupied with the survival of their organization. Their main concern was not the doctrine of their group, but rather assuring a basic infrastructure for it to survive and grow. 

Yes, obviously a basic infrastructure is required, and the Legionaries started to accomplish this, with limited resources, in a short time. This contrasts to the “movement,” which believes that they can accomplish their goals with zero infrastructure, have no idea how to build such an infrastructure even if they decided they needed it, and who have squandered decades of time and millions of dollars.

The end of the year, however, brought one of the most difficult moments for the Legion. After being banned from the parliamentary elections in December, towards the end of the month a criminal squad of three legionnaires killed the acting Prime Minister, liberal I.G. Duca. Therefore, the Legion remained banned, along with its newspapers, and its leaders were tried as the moral perpetrators of the crime.

Does this sound familiar?  Today, foolish activists commit acts of violence, causing White nationalists to be banned, deplatformed, legally persecuted, and considered by the System and by the general society to be the “moral perpetrators” of these crimes.  How did the Legionaries respond?  Let's read on.

The beginning of the third stage in the Legion’s “quest for the new man” was marked by the criminal act of December 1933. Between 1934 and 1937, the Legion had no access to conventional means of political expression. However, this was the most fruitful stage for the development of the legionary project. The idea of building a “new country” through a “new type of man” was not a conventional one and did not need exclusively conventional methods to be put into practice.

This is what I advocate. I have suggested for today's "movement" a period of strategic withdrawal, a retrenchment, a rebuilding phase, a period of renewal - for racial activists to straighten out their acts, build real infrastructures, and become worthy, before putting themselves forth loudly and publicly.  This can be done right now, with limited resources.  It is an internal, not external, project.  It can be done "under the radar." Certainly, some subset of activists can get involved in electoral politics - at this time NOT directly associated with the “movement" - and, certainly, behind-the-scenes community building can take place.  But this is NOT the time for rallies, confrontations, and feckless “leaders” (grifters) making bombastic public proclamations.

After coming under severe public condemnation due to its violent and destructive actions, the Legion wanted to cast itself as a constructive movement. Thus, the rhetoric of the “new man” served the Legion very well.  

The similarities to today’s situation are obvious.

To this end, Codreanu published The nest’s leader booklet which served as a textbook that encoded the doctrinaire and organizational principles of the Legion. The strict, paramilitary organisation and cult rituals performed in the nest were part of the taming process, so eloquently described by George L. Mosse, as the key to fascism’s successes. 

I believe that the same could be successful today, helping to establish an esprit de corps. Yes, I know that the infantile Millennial crowd, with their snark, will ridicule that as “LARPING” and “old-fashioned WN 1.0.”  That’s coming from folks who have humiliated themselves since the 2016 election, who have wrecked racial nationalism, and have brought the “movement” to new lows.  Why should anyone listen to them?  What rituals do they perform?  Chugging gallons of milk and screaming about “Kek?”

What is even more important is that in this work, Codreanu drew the profile of the “new men,” an ideal construction to serve as model for the young legionaries. For him, the Legion’s regenerative project, what he called a “spiritual revolution,” could not be fulfilled by ordinary man but by new, “spiritualised” human beings

Hence, it is not sufficient to try to push through your political program, promote your ideology, with the degenerate filth passing themselves off as “activists.” You need the highest quality people to actualize your ideology into reality.  That is why the attitude of “you work with who is available” is so wrong-headed, so destructive, and why it has led to constant failure.

What you do is work to make available people of quality, rather than work with who is available.

The longing for a spiritual revolution was clearly stated by Codreanu: The new man or the renewed nation presupposes a great spiritual renewal, a great spiritual revolution of the whole people, a revolution that is opposed to the Spiritual direction of our day and an explicit offensive against this direction. Given the importance of the “new man” to the awaited revolution, Codreanu underscored the qualities that he should possess. The task of the “new man,” to solve the current crisis and guide the nation to a rebirth, asked for supreme qualities, qualities only available to super-humans, as other fascist movements implied. Therefore, Codreanu did not shy away from describing the “new man” as a modern hero, who had to show magnificent strengths in a plurality of fields…

Contrast this attitude of Codreanu with “you work with who is available.” The difference of viewpoint is so stark that there is no overlap whatsoever. Please note that the correct attitude was generated from those "no good" “Outer Hajnal” Romanians, while the obviously incorrect attitude derives from ethnies worshipped by the “movement.”

The nest is the basic organisational structure of the Legion, containing at least 3 people and no more than 13. The nest is led by a chief, conducts weekly meetings, and plays an educational role for future legionaries.

I believe the basic “nest” structure – essentially a cell structure – is sound. It is of a manageable size, breeds camaraderie, and, in theory, if compromised, the damage would not contaminate the organization as a whole.  I say in theory, because the System’s legal structures would attempt to hold the whole responsible for the actions of an isolated part. Here we see the need – the absolute requirement – for not only the highest quality of activists with iron discipline, and not only proper vetting to try to prevent infiltration (“are you Swedish” or “are you a film critic” does not constitute proper vetting, by the way), you also need a proper legal defense infrastructure and “friends” in the political apparatus.  All of which the “movement” doesn’t have, after decades of “activism" and after squandering millions of dollars of followers’ money.

The young legionary leader Mihail Stelescu…

Further comment about that individual is superfluous.

The legionary school had the mission to create a special “atmosphere” of moral cleanliness for the young legionaries who were destined to become the “new men” of tomorrow. After the young legionaries were educated in this school (the nests and the work camps) and became the awaited “new men,” their mission was to conquer the real world, and to serve as examples of what the Legion could do. To quote Codreanu: After the legionary has developed in this kind of atmosphere, in the Nest, the work camp, in the organization and the legionary family itself, he will be sent into the world: to live, in order to learn how to behave properly; to fight, in order to learn how to be brave and strong; to work, in order to learn the habit of working and the love of all those who labor; to suffer, in order to steel himself; to sacrifice, in order to get used to transcending his own person in the service of his people.

Now that is what should be done today.  Please once again note that these hora-dancing Romanians, so despised by the Amren crowd, had the correct idea of what to do, yet all our wonderfully superior big-brained "Inner Hajnal" heroes leading the American “movement” are so comically inept they couldn’t do more damage than if they were actively trying to do so.  Compare the behavior of the typical “movement” leader of today and the typical “movement” activist of today to what the Legionary movement was doing and the differences are crystal clear.

The image of the Legion as a spiritual school designing a “new man” was appealing for many young people, especially students. They joined the Legion with the genuine belief that they could be part of something historic. 

That is how you attract idealistic youth. Not with drunken podcasts, homosexual flirtation, obsessions over a cartoon frog, screams of “Kek,” and the constant call for “D’Nations.”

The legion is not only a school for intellectual education, in which man is taught to judge in a correct manner, by doing, it is not only a favorable environment for a development of political thought and the sense of tactics, but it is also a school for characters and for the moral rebirth of the Romanian people.

Character and moral rebirth – these are the essential ingredients sorely lacking in today’s “movement.”  Without them, victory is impossible. Without them, defeat is assured.  With them, victory is possible.

The “new man” remained an ideal only partially fulfilled, and the Legion ended in violence without putting its regenerative project into practice. Nevertheless, its impact on Romanian interwar political life was a salient one.

And it is even more salient today. If there is ONE single thing I would advise White racial activists to do today, it would be to emphasize, to focus on, character and moral rebirth, to focus on The New Man.  With that, anything is possible.  Without that, nothing is possible. Although ideology, science, intelligence, strategy, et al. are all crucially important, they take a back seat to character and moral integrity.  You cannot build a worldwide revolutionary movement on a foundation of quicksand; you cannot build a victorious movement on a foundation of freaks, grifters, phonies, frauds, the morally defective, perverts, liars, gaslighters, deranged fetishists, tin-foil-hat conspiracy theorists, individuals with all sorts of completely superfluous hang-ups and bizarre theories, weaklings, traitors, and all the rest. We have to remake ourselves before we try and remake the world.

See this.  Emphasis added:

"It is not enough to reassert the ideals of the students; a student conference cannot be reduced to a mere show of ideology; a conference must be an occasion to study the interior capacity of students to achieve their ends. It is pointless to talk of ideals if, at the same time, one does look to the means by which these ideals will be achieved. 

What is the capacity for sacrifice of the youth united at this conference? It is only by a fusion of the student's personal life with his ideal that the latter's achievement can be assured. 

The essential thing is the spirit of sacrifice. 

We all of us have the most formidable dynamite, the most advanced weapon of war, more powerful than tanks and machine guns: it is our own ashes! Every power in the world is destined to collapse, whilst it remains with the ashes of brave fighters, fallen for Justice and for God."   - Ion Mota

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

Codreanu Quotes

A collection of quotes.

Read here.

Three of many selected below:

There is, among all those various parts of the world who serve their people, a kinship of sympathy, as there is such a kinship among those who labour for the destruction of peoples.  

A country has the Jews it deserves. Just as mosquitoes can thrive and settle only in swamps, likewise the former can only thrive in the swamps of our sins.  

Romania is dying because of a lack of men, not a lack of programs.

Greg Johnson on the Prison Notes

The Legionary Movement is key; is anyone listening?

Read here.

Codreanu's Prison Notes

Something useful.

Read here.

The "movement" can learn a few things from the Legionary Movement, but I doubt it is paying any attention.

Fascism and Codreanu

Legionary Movement and Fascism.

Read this.

This author has  a better grasp of what fascism is about, its "protean nature," than a certain plagiarizing writer for the same blog who previously defined fascism in the most pitifully ignorant and biased fashion.  The key to understanding fascism is not to dwell on the highly specific characteristics exhibited by whatever form of fascism is actualized in a particular nation.  Instead, the key is Griffin's "palingenetic ultra-nationalism" and a Faustian revolutionary ethos of "self-overcoming" for the entire nation/ethny.  Such things as "corporate state structure" and "state worship" and "marching around in black leather boots" are just the surface manifestations of highly specific, particular species of fascism.

Franco's Spain and other "para-fascist" states - reactionary, anti-revolutionary, with absolutely no palingenetic ethos - were in no way "fascist."  Also, the type of "ultra-nationalism" differed in real fascist states: in Italy, Nation-State; in Germany, Nation-Race; in Romania, Nation-Religion.

And, speaking of Romania...

The author is correct to state that the specifics of the Legionary Movement would "not fly" today, and as much as I admire that movement (the epitome of a true movement) and admire Codreanu, I disapprove of the Christianity which was at that movement's specific core.  But, to me, the Legionary movement was not really about is specifics, its outward form, but its real inner core: the highly focused Faustian palingenetic drive for a New Man, a form of Nietzsche's overman, better than the "human, all too human," a new type of character, a Homo fascistus.

That is what we should remember.

Learning from Codreanu's Mistakes

A coherent ideology and a plan for governing are required.

Here.

Codreanu and the Iron Guard

An important piece of fascist history.

Codreanu.

Codreanu's Prison Notes

Counter-Currents.

Here.

Codreanu and his movement are of the utmost importance, and provide an example of important "proximate" interests that transcend the empirical/materialist/genetic-biological - interests that should not be ignored.