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.

Spengler, Race, and Counter-Currents

My response.

Article here.

My response:

There need not be incompatibility between a racial preservationist approach per se and a forward-thinking approach to race.  One can draw a line at certain maladaptive scenarios that imperil preservationism and EGI: miscegenation, mass immigration, dysgenics, too-rapid changes in genotype/phenotype even if “positive” and within a homogenous population.  As long as certain requirements are met, as long as a foundation of genetic continuity is in place, then one can pursue prudent eugenic goals and one call follow an upward path to racial progress.  One cannot forego progress in the name of static conservative preservationism; on the other hand, one cannot dispense with continuity and genetic interests in order to pursue ‘transhumanist” objectives that would radically alter racial identity and the genetic interests of generations of a population with their posterity.  

The same applies to “spiritual race” concepts.  One can identify with, and value, such traits only insofar as one has first taken care of the material, biological, “zoological” aspects of race.  True enough, biology alone is “sterile zoology” -  but spirit without physical form is a self-destructive and self-defeating abstraction.  You need both.

Lords of Chaos

Chaos theory.

Like many on the Right, I generally support the concept of Order; I am an Apollonian type who is an acolyte of Science and Technics.  So, it is interesting that I am, in my various blogs, I advocate the utility of Chaos for advancing the cause of racial nationalism.  And not only as a short-term destabilizing tool, but as a long-term approach to instill virile instincts to our objective if instilling a healthy sense of Order.

Looking at the passivity of the White race, its capacity to accept abuse unlimited, it is quite clear that Whites – and here we can focus on White men – have become over-civilized, effete, and degenerate, and easy prey for the more barbaric peoples of the Third World.  Too much order, too much abstraction, too much Apollonian rationality is as destructive as the other end of the spectrum: too much chaos, too much barbarism, too much Dionysian emotion.  Pure Order and Pure Chaos both lead to the Last Man. Pure Order leads to the Last Man decried by Nietzsche: the Last Man of comfort, of stasis, of effete stagnation.  Pure Chaos leads to the Last Man of Third World savagery and colored backwardness.  There needs to be a balance. And since the White Man of today is over-civilized, too much in the direction of Order, then some sort of Chaos is necessary.  Nietzsche, the champion of the Dionysian, said that you must have chaos in yourself if you want to be a “dancing star.”  For those more interested in fiction, I am reminded of the story told by Gene Wolfe in his The Book of the New Sun, how humans gave up the “wild part of themselves to reach the stars,” not realizing that it was that part of themselves that had initially allowed them to be fully human.  And in Wolfe’s universe that Empire built on pure Order collapsed. The barbarian values can never be ignored or eschewed. Chaos leads to creativity, chaos leads to fertility, Chaos – paradoxically as it may seem – provides the foundation for a lasting and balanced sense of Order.

                                                                                                                                

There is of course the old idea that vigorous barbarians revitalize decadent cultures (the Germans/Romans/Western civilization paradigm is popular within the “movement”), and we can recall Hamilton’s idea that a type of daring, self-sacrificing altruism, linked to creativity, dies off in advanced civilizations, and such a culture requires the fresh blood of barbarian pastoralists to restore the proper genetic-behavioral balance.  Frost’s ideas of genetic pacification fit here as well. But we’ve run out of the barbarians of our own race, and those of others, even if we wanted to tolerate the EGI-destroyed admixture (and we do not), lack the altruism and creativity that is the hallmark of European Man.  There are some in the “movement” who look to Russia, but even if we put aside the realization that these folks over-idealize Russian potential in this regard, the fact remains that Russia can be considered to be of a different High Culture at present (many Russians certainly think so), and even if Russia can shake off the domination of the Putinian Eurasian multiculturalists, the fact remains that, in the last analysis, the Western Core needs to save itself, it cannot depend on others, who have their own agenda.  Certainly, in the future, the Western and Eastern halves of the race can combine to form the new Overman High Culture, but that will require the participation of all Europeans, not a scenario in which Russians impose their own cultural development on everyone else.  So, regardless of the future, today, the West needs to save itself.  We need to become our own barbarians, to the extent possible. I do not believe that the genes have been completely extinguished yet.  There is still hope.

Here I would like to distinguish between the Orderly Chaos of the System and the Chaotic Order that we would like to be its replacement.  The System has as its objective the creation of a Third World hellish Chaos and they use the technics of Order to achieve that: Orwellian social controls and a managerial elite, analogous in a way to Francis’ Anarcho-Tyranny. This is Orderly Chaos: an organized system to create chaos.  On the other hand, Chaotic Order is a scenario in which creativity, fertility, strategic emotion and irrationality, barbarian virtues are all used to create Order, using Chaos as the fertilizer to grow a true and balanced Order.  Chaos can be used not only to impose Order, but also to maintain it.  Thus, contrary to what some may believe, the chaos is not simply a tool used to destabilize the present System, after which we will have an orderly stagnation.  No, using chaos has to be an ongoing process, a permanent revolution so to speak, to allow us to be “dancing stars” and not effete slaves, Overmen and not Last Men. We need to be the Lords of Chaos in order to be the Champions of Order.

Further Development of Avant Garde Memes Required

Avant garde politics, racialism, and science?

An introduction.

Crude ethnic stereotyping may lead one to conclude that an emphasis on art, culture, and aesthetics in the creation of fascist ideology was (and is) a particularly “French” phenomenon. Of course, other fascist movements were concerned with these issues, sometimes to a significant extent, but none of them incorporated such memes into the core of the political thinking as did French fascist thinkers. Indeed, the cultural-aesthetic emphasis of the French strain of fascism is a breath of fresh air after immersion in the more focused political thought of the Italian Fascists and the racialist ideals of the German National Socialists.  

In fact, all three areas of focus – cultural-aesthetic, political, and racialist – are required for a complete memetic complex to promote fascistic ideals. As a biological reductionist, I would emphasize the racialist first of all, but doing so with respect to modern genetic science rather than the sort of quackery that passed as “racial science” under the Nazis. However, biological racialism by itself is not enough. Without an edifice of political and cultural-aesthetic memes, the foundation of ultimate interests will go nowhere.

Advocating avant garde memes should not be construed as some sort of pretentious, pseudo-intellectual, “artsy wine-and-cheese” mindset, but rather a fundamental appreciation of the need to break with old ways – ways that are proven failures – and experiment with fresh approaches to the problems of race and civilization.  Therefore, we should advocate avant garde approaches not only for art/culture, but, equally so, in politics, for our view if race, and, to the extent possible, in science.  It is too easy to fall back into bad habits, whether these be artistic, political, racial, or scientific. True enough, new doesn’t always mean best or right (this is where I disagree with the dogmatic futurists – extreme dogmatism should be viewed skeptically*), but we won’t know unless it is tried. We are all familiar with avant garde art (which means, perhaps, that now even newer forms require experimentation), but the precise manner in which avant garde politics, racialism, and science will be actualized remains to be determined.

 *I don’t say that dogmatically.