Fight Club, Evola and Secret Societies

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Fight Club, Evola and Secret Societies

Postby American Dream » Wed Jan 03, 2018 12:24 am

Former White Supremacist Leader—Here's How to Stop Hate Groups from Spreading

Image

EJB: Did you try to bring women into white supremacy or did you only try to recruit young men?

CP: We did recruit women, but recruitment was highly individualized and we tried to reach people by appealing to their specific needs. In my day, more men than women were brought in. In public, we’d talk about women as progenitors of the white race, goddesses who would give birth to the next generation of white warriors. But I have to tell you, behind closed doors this was the most misogynist culture I’ve ever seen. Women were solely for sex and for making babies. They were also the recipients of male aggression, someone to boss around. Women planned our events, but were only there to support the men. They could organize the merchandise table but were never part of the political discussion and were never thought of as leaders.


More at: https://www.alternet.org/books/intervie ... picciolini
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Fight Club, Evola and Secret Societies

Postby American Dream » Mon Jan 15, 2018 12:03 pm

An (((Asshole Feminist’s))) Guide to the Alt-Right: Part 1

With that shit out of the way, let’s get to lumping people into broad and blunt categories. Everyone’s favorite gay, half-Jewish, Supreme-sponsored misogynist, Milo Yiannopoulos (who would be a misceginator if he weren’t gay), in his “An Establishment Conservative’s Guide to the Alt-Right” divided the alt-right into “Intellectuals,” “Natural Conservatives,” “The Meme Team,” and “1488ers.” I’m going to largely ignore most of these people for a few reasons.

“Natural Conservatives” and “1488ers” are nothing new. Radical-right white separatists have been around for decades, as have the wide array of non-ironic neo-Nazi organizations everyone is pretending just emerged onto the political scene. No one in, say, North Idaho is surprised at the disillusionment of white separatists with the pro-immigration stance of a Republican party that exists to serve the interests of corporations who need immigrants to suppress wages. The only new development in the world of earnest far-right white separatists/supremacists is that they’ve been given the signal that it’s OK to make a scene of themselves in public again for the first time since the 80s.

Milo’s “Intellectuals” don’t really merit the label, either. Steve Bannon may be a wet-brain alcoholic, but he isn’t stupid. Nor was Andrew Breitbart. But their attempt to coat extremely stupid far-right ideas with a veneer of intellectualism wasn’t working when I wrote about it a few years ago:

I wouldn’t know who Breitbart was had I not seen Dylan Ratigan interview him — and even then I could scarcely pay attention because I lost the ability to be amused by conservative commentators years ago — but apparently he makes the claim that objectivity is a falsehood propagated by the “liberal media” in order to cloak its agenda in an air of factual empiricism, when in reality they approach current events with just as much bias as Rush Limbaugh or any other right-wing demagogue. The debate over whether there is such a thing as a “liberal media” is beyond hackneyed and boring at this point, but it is rather amusing to hear a conservative public “intellectual” question the existence of true objectivity. It sounds oddly reminiscent of, oh, I don’t know, let’s say post-modern liberal academics. That isn’t an accident…[It’s] a new trend among conservative commentators, which is to jettison the Glenn Beck-esque hysteria that has characterized conservative media since Obama’s election and replace it with a faux-intellectualism that will allow even the borderline-illiterate to feel like top shelf political analysts.


And it isn’t working now, either. No actual intellectual is buying into the biological essentialism of the Bell Curve crowd or the theories of female inferiority that emerge from the “manosphere.” These arguments may be compelling to those who have never read anything longer than a Tumblr post, but there really isn’t an intellectual arm of the alt-right that has been anointed as such by anyone but themselves.

That leaves “The Meme Team.” If you ask me, they’re the only sub-group in Milo’s taxonomy that warrant examination, since they’re the ones the DNC are so thirsty for (never mind the GOP, who rightfully fear the alt-right that appears dangerously nihilistic and incomprehensible to them).

Image


Read more: https://rageagainstthemanchine.com/2017 ... ht-part-1/
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Fight Club, Evola and Secret Societies

Postby American Dream » Mon Jan 15, 2018 8:01 pm

An American National Bolshevik

by Loren Goldner

Review of:
Kevin Coogan. Dreamer of the Day. Francis Parker Yockey and the Postwar Fascist International. Autonomedia. New York, 1999. 642 p. $16.95.




"Provincial patriotism of the nineteenth- century type can evoke no response. The unity of the West which the barbarian has always recognized is recognized at the last hour by the West itself."

"Western policy has the duty of encouraging in its education of the youth its manifestation of strong character, self-discipline, honor, ambition, renunciation of weakness, striving after perfection, superiority, leadership--in a word--Race."

Francis Yockey, Imperium, (1948).


Fascism in every country, until 1945, almost always conjured up archaic, pre-capitalist, pre-Enlightenment national myth for its symbolism: Mussolini and the Roman Empire, Franco and the Falange, Hitler and the Thousand-Year Reich. In the United States, the task was made more difficult by the absence, for the radical right, of a "usable" pre-capitalist past; for stone white supremacists, the Iroquois Nation or Yoruba culture would hardly do.

Fascism, two world wars, the genocide of the Jews and gypsies, and the weakening of the nation-state through exhaustion cast a cloud over nationalist archaisms in the advanced capitalist world after 1945 (the emerging Third World was of course another story). For these reasons, and because of an important internationalization of capitalism through U.S. world hegemony, it was inevitable that the radical right in the advanced capitalist countries would turn to archaic symbols connected to the West as a whole. Thus, throughout Europe and to some extent in the U.S., "Aryans" (the word having acquired a bad odor) were rebaptized Indo-Europeans, and highbrow intellectuals such as Martin Heidegger, Mircea Eliade, Marija Gimbutas, and Julius Evola created the high road for the rehabilitation of the old ideas, followed on lower roads by Atlantis buffs, occultists, Celtic tree-worshipers, fake Tibetologists, Wagner freaks, Holocaust deniers and Teutonic rune scholars.

Today, in Europe, including Russia, and to some extent in the United States, important factions of the radical right have quietly buried the old biological racism and the nationalist chauvinism of pre-1945 fascism. The most sophisticated figures, such as Alain de Benoist, freely quote from Antonio Gramsci (for which Gramsi is of course not to be blamed), argue that the old categories of "left" and "right" are dead(1), and insist that their desire to expel immigrants and Jews from Europe has nothing to do with "grandpa's fascism", but rather because they see such groups invariably as bearers of "other cultures", not inferior, mind you, but "different". These theorists have their own version of post-modern cultural relativism, and say that Jews, blacks and Arabs are fine-- just as long as they stay in their own countries, or return there, the sooner the better. The European radical right supported Iraq in the Gulf War, a type of "Third Worldism" that was marginal in Western interwar fascism (but not entirely absent, as we shall see).

What fascism hates above all is universalism, and it hates the Jews for having, through the monotheism they passed to Christianity, supposedly inflicted the "slave morality" (Nietzsche) of universalism on the "strong", "young", "nature-loving" "blond beasts", the Indo-Europeans and other pagans, and for having, through the ban on image-making, destroyed such peoples' pagan nature-worship and myth. Capitalism for the fascists mostly means finance capital, Jews and money; the link between monotheism and abstraction on one hand and commodity production and wage labor on the other is beyond their ken. Behind the hatred of universalism is the hatred of the idea of humanity, or what Marx called "species- being"; fascism sooner or later, and usually sooner, identifies some group, whether whites, or Teutons, or an aristocratic cultural elite, the "Uebermenschen" (supermen) as destined to dominate, or expel, or annihilate the "Untermenschen" (inferior beings), or, more up to date, those who are ineffably "different". The trendy post-modern left supports "difference" and argues for relativistic tolerance (which extends to tolerance of barbaric archaisms, such as cliterodectomy, among "subaltern peoples"), the hard radical right supports it to advocate (at least in its politer forms) removal, but both currents find themselves in profound agreement on the fundamental issue of the denial of humanity as a meaningful reality. Like their predecessors, the early 19th century enemies of the Enlightenment and the universalism of the French revolution, they "know Frenchmen, Germans, Italians and Greeks", but consider "man" a meaningless abstraction.

Thus the contemporary right-wing publicist Armin Mohler is not wrong to say that today's post-modernists are the bastard progeny of the Conservative Revolution of the 1920's (about which latter more below).

It is fairly well known that Hitler and the Nazis always insisted that they had learned a great deal from America, and in particular from the American eugenics movement, which preceded their own Social Darwinism, racial laws and ban on interracial marriage, doctrines of blood purity, and medical experiments on "Untermenschen", by decades.

What is less well known is that an American fascist theoretician, Francis Parker Yockey (1917-1960), himself marginal in the American radical right even today, is actually a theoretical pioneer of the contemporary international fascist revival with its new cultural politics, and is recognized as such from France to Russia's contemporary "red-brown" ferment. (Yockey is promoted in the U.S., and somewhat disingenuously, mainly by Willis Carto and the Liberty Lobby.(2)) Contemporary fascism, internationally, finds it a largely losing battle to conjure up the old biological racism and master-race theories: they can chip away at the still-powerful association of such biological determinism with the concentration camps, but they have found a far more fertile path in circumventing such questions with a whole new battle over "culture". And once this is recognized, the centrality of Francis Yockey, the subject of the excellent book by Kevin Coogan under consideration here, and who spelled this out in his 1948 book Imperium, looms into view.

Yockey, in in his youth, in the depths of the depression, was briefly sympathetic to Marxism, but quickly abandoned it for fascism. Subsequently, in late 1930's Chicago, he jostled different far-right groups such as pro-Hitler German Bundists, anti-labor vigilantes, Silver Shirts and the Father Coughlin movement. But Yockey himself was no storefront fascist. Possibly the decisive ideological influence in his life had been the reading, in 1934, of Oswald Spengler's Decline of the West (a world-wide best seller in the 1920's). Through Spengler (including his later works Years of Decision and Prussianism and Socialism) Yockey stepped into the ferment of 1890-1933 Germany known as the "Conservative Revolution", and such other (sometimes brilliant) reactionary theorists as Carl Schmitt, Karl Haushofer, Ernst Niekisch, Ernst Juenger, Moeller van den Bruck, not to mention the highly ambiguous earlier figure of Friedrich Nietzsche. For most of these intellectuals, Hitler and the Nazis were vulgar guttersnipes and their "voelkisch" (i.e. populist) ideology merely one more version of the mass society the Conservative Revolutionaries despised. What mainly characterized the Conservative Revolution were variants of an aristocratic radicalism that imagined a regeneration of decadent bourgeois society from the throes of materialism, democracy, socialism and feminism by a "hard" cultural elite of "supermen", men such as those tempered in the trench warfare of World War I and the "storms of steel" (the title of Juenger's 1920's best-selling novel) of the modern technological battlefield. Spengler, in his major work, had defined "universalism" as the passage from "culture" to "civilization" in an organic rise and fall; this phase emerged when the old culture-bearing elite was sinking into effete aestheticism, and prepared the way for Caesarism (an anticipation of the coming of Hitler).

Aside from Spengler himself, two figures of the Conservative Revolution in particular stand out as decisive influences on Yockey: Carl Schmitt and Karl Haushofer. As a student at Georgetown University in the mid-1930's, Yockey encountered Schmitt as the leading international Catholic jurist of the period. Schmitt's relationship to Hitler and the Nazis was complex, but hardly (to put it mildly) a hostile one. Schmitt's sophisticated legal theory was little short of state-idolatry, and presented a distinction between "enemy" and "foe" which passed easily into fascist political and legal thought. An "enemy" for Schmitt was an opponent of the moment, with whom there was temporary conflict and disagreement, but a "foe" was an irreconcilable opponent against whom the struggle was potentially total and lethal. Schmitt ridiculed Western parliamentarism and democracy, and developed ideas about the inevitability of extra-parliamentary activity -- i.e. activity in the streets -- which also influenced the German New Left in the 1960's (Schmitt was among other things an admirer of Lenin). This in turn shaped Schmitt's idea of Ernstfall or "ultimate confrontation" in which normal legality had to be suspended. (Schmitt provided the legal cover for the 1934 "Night of the Long Knives" in which Hitler eliminated the "red fascist" wing of the Nazi Party around the Strasser brothers).

Last but not least (for Yockey) was Schmitt's idea of "Grossraumordnung", literally "great space order" but more concretely a "geographical zone dominated by a political idea" (a concept beyond the nation-state), which after 1945 was taken over into Yockey's call for an "Imperium of the West", a European super-state capable of resisting both the Soviet Union and the United States (though Yockey considered the U.S. the greater danger)(3).

But if Schmitt was one of the more brilliant theorists (along with the Italian philosopher Gentile) of fascism's well-known mystique of the state, the figure of Karl Haushofer leads us into some of the most unusual, and important, aspects of Yockey's later development. Haushofer was the leading German exponent of "geopolitics", a theory of international power politics developed by the German Ratzel and the Englishman Mackinder. Based ultimately on a Social Darwinist idea of struggle for "space", geopolitics was a theory of the struggle for world empire, essentially the pre-1914 struggle between then-dominant Britain and ascendant Germany. The basic idea of geopolitics was that the world power which controls the perimeter of Russia controls the world, thus making it the theory of the "great game" among the world powers from the Baltic to China and Japan, via Iran and Tibet. Haushofer spoke Far Eastern languages (Japanese, Chinese, Korean) as well as Russian fluently, and spent years in Japan as a German military attach(c), in the wake of Japan's stunning defeat of Russia in 1905. The Russo-Japanese war was of particular significance since it was the first time that a "white" nation had been defeated with modern weapons by a "non-white" nation, and it was a kind of "wake-up call" to emergent anti-colonial struggles everywhere. (Because it also led to the 1905-06 mass strike wave, a dress rehearsal for the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, it also set down the association, with a brilliant future ahead of it, whereby colonial peoples came to see 1917 primarily as a national and not as a proletarian revolution.) Haushofer knew a great deal about esoteric schools of Japanese Buddhism (and was rumored to belong to one), and later distinguished himself as an officer in the German army during World War I. But the most important idea which Yockey took from Haushofer was the latter's advocacy of German support for anti-colonial peoples in their struggles against the British and French empires, as well as Haushofer's rejection of white supremacist reticence about such support, at a time when ideas of the "yellow peril" and the rising challenge to "white" world supremacy were common coin throughout the West. Haushofer is often cited as the inspiration of the lucid passages treating foreign policy in Hitler's Mein Kampf, but, as Coogan points out, Hitler and Haushofer parted ways over race. Hitler preferred an India under white (i.e. British) rule to Indian independence, however much the latter might weaken the British empire. This Hauhofer link to Yockey emerges after 1945 in Yockey's sympathy for Third World liberation struggles, including those of the Palestinians, Nasser's Egypt and Castro's Cuba.

The real key to Yockey, however, is summed up in the term "National Bolshevik", a somewhat obscure yet very important strand of the 1920's Conservative Revolution, and one which is increasingly important today. The term "National Bolshevik" refers to an ambiguous minority current that appeared in the revolutionary wave in Europe immediately following World War I. The term was first used by Bela Kun, head of the short-lived Communist government in Hungary in 1919, and cropped up in some statements of Karl Radek, the Communist revolutionary who conducted Comintern business from his prison cell in Berlin in the same year, meeting with members of the German business(4) and military elite as well as with the German radical left. (He also laid the foundation for Russia's commercial treaty with Attaturk in 1920, concluded even as Attaturk was murdering leading members of the Turkish Communist Party.) In 1923, the German CP undertook the brief "Schlageter turn"(5) of several months during which it worked with the Nazis in a campaign against the Versailles Treaty, staging rallies and sharing podiums from which Ruth Fischer attacked "Jewish capital" in a way sometimes difficult to distinguish from fascist rhetoric(6). Already in 1922, Germany had signed the Rapallo treaty with the Soviet Union, allowing the defeated German army to to use the Ukraine for secret training and maneuvers banned under the Versailles Treaty. Because of Germany's central position in continental Europe, the possibility of a German- Russian rapprochement against the West often hovered over European power politics, posing a direct threat to Britain and France, and much of the foreign policy of the two major world empires was aimed at preventing just such an alliance. Germany since 1870 had been the "new power" threatening British and French hegemony , and German support of different kinds for anti-colonial movements in the British and French empires (which dated from the pre-1914 Kaiserreich) was a constant problem for the latter. Thus in 1922 when the Rapallo treaty brought Germany into an alliance with revolutionary Russia, there was general consternation in Anglo-French ruling circles. In 1932, (as in 1923) the German Communist Party again cooperated with the Nazis (7) in strikes and street actions against the "main enemy", the "social-fascist" German Social Democrats, a perspective they bizarrely maintained even after Hitler seized power and put them into concentration camps, expressed in their slogan "After Hitler Comes Our Turn". Finally, the consternation occasioned by Rapallo was completely eclipsed by the impact of the Stalin-Hitler Pact in 1939.

But "National Bolshevism" refers to much more than just a rapprochement between Germany and Russia, or tactical collaboration between Communists and Nazis against liberals and Social Democrats. It condenses a series of attitudes which reach far beyond Europe, and which have wider currency in the contemporary world than is generally recognized: hence the importance of Yockey and of Coogan's study of Yockey.

National Bolshevism is one of the most extreme forms of appropriation of elements of the revolutionary socialist movement for the preservation of class society. Weimar Germany from 1918 to 1933 was a laboratory of a myriad of currents thrown up by the simultaneous potential of working-class revolution (1918-1921) and of the extreme reaction (which borrowed significantly from the workers' movement) brought to bear against that potential, culminating in Hitler's triumph in 1933. Though figures such as Bela Kun and Karl Radek are better known, National Bolshevism entered the workers' movement most dramatically in Hamburg and Bremen in 1920, articulated by the two German ex-Wobblies Wolffheim and Laufenberg, who threw themselves into the German workers' councils that sprung up after World War I. For Wolffheim and Laufenberg, as for a number of other currents of the early 1920's in Germany and elsewhere(8), workers' revolution was the royal road to the national revolution; for the National Bolsheviks, the Russian Revolution was itself a national revolution(9). (To his credit, Lenin called National Bolshevism "eine himmelschreiende Absurditaet", roughly, a "monstrous absurdity". Unfortunately, other figures of the Third International were not so careful.)

The National Bolsheviks, and later Yockey, saw the cosmopolitan proletarian internationalism of Lenin, Trotsky and the early Russian Revolution as a superficial veneer which was cast aside by Stalin(10). "National Bolshevism" ultimately transposes Marx's theory of the war between the classes to an international theory of struggle between "bourgeois nations" and "proletarian nations", and buries the singularity and autonomy of the working class (the international class par excellence) in a mystique of the state and the nation. In the interwar period, the main "bourgeois nations" (or plutocracies, as Georges Sorel, among others, called them) were Britain and France; after 1945, the same logic was transposed to the new center of world capital, the United States. And nowhere moreso than in the work of Francis Yockey. The "proletarian nations" were first of all Germany and Italy, but the term applied equally (if not moreso) to all the "new nations" created by the Versailles Treaty, beginning with Eastern and Central Europe, not to mention the Latin American nations under the thumb of Anglo-French or American finance capital, and last but hardly least the growing nationalist ferment in the colonial world, a ferment encouraged, as indicated earlier, by successive German governments.

It is still little recognized today how ideologies first developed in interwar Europe to describe the tensions between the "core" bourgeois democracies and the "periphery"(11) of "young" or "new" nations were exported to the semi-colonial and colonial world, often directly through the influence of "National Bolshevik" or later National Socialist figures, and after 1945 by the Nazis who fled to the Middle East and Latin America. After 1918, dozens of new nations emerged from the four defeated empires (Hohenzollern Prussia, Habsburg Austria-Hungary, Romanov Russia and the Ottomans) and after 1945, dozens more appeared in Africa, the Middle East and the rest of Asia from the breakup of the British and French empires. In most of these "new nations", as well as in the semi-colonial countries of Latin America (Peron's Argentina and Vargas's Brazil come to mind), there was a real or potential local elite that recycled alloyed or unalloyed "National Bolshevism" from its original Central and Eastern European interwar sources into international "left" "anti-imperialist" currency. The 1960's Western leftist admirers of Chou en-lai and Lin Piao would have perhaps been surprised to learn that the latter's occasional references to the struggle between "bourgeois nations" and "proletarian nations" had been articulated decades earlier by Joseph Goebbels and Gregor Strasser. It would have been less of a surprise, or none at all, to Francis Yockey.

In 1947, Yockey settled in a remote village in Ireland to write his magnum opus, Imperium, in which he attempted to reinvent fascism for the new U.S.-dominated world. Yockey had gone AWOL from the U.S. Army in 1942 after a ring of German and pro-German saboteurs to which his family had connections was arrested by the FBI. Two months later, this "Fifth Columnist" (as opposed to an actual spy for Germany, in Coogan's assessment) had returned voluntarily to the Army and, after a real or feigned mental breakdown, managed to be honorably discharged in 1943 for "medical" reasons. He held a couple of government jobs and then, ("incredibly", as Coogan puts it) in late 1945 went to Germany as a prosecuting attorney for the Nuremburg trials. Less than a year later, he was fired from this position, in which he had distinguished himself by chronic absenteism, using that year to build up contacts to the anti-Allied German underground which was actively conducting terrorism and sabotage against American military targets.

Much of Imperium reads like recycled Spengler, arguing for a hierarchy of culture elites, drawing on the same organic metaphor of rise and decay of cultures used by Spengler.

Like Spengler, Yockey in Imperium (12) rejects the old fascist race theories:

Race is not group anatomy.
Race is not independent of the soil.
Race is not independent of the Spirit of History.
Race is not classifiable, except on an ability basis.
Race is not a rigid, permanent, collective characterization of human beings, which remains always the same throughout history.(13)


The hierarchy of races at any given time are historical creations which "can have, of course, no eternal validity"(14).


"Thus the school of Gobineau, Chamberlain...was on the same tangent as the materialists who announced that there is no such thing as Race...The source of a hierarchy of races is History, the forces of happening...Thus, in the subjective sense, there is also a hierarchy of race. Above, the men of race, below--those without race"(15).


For Yockey the

"twentieth- century viewpoint on this matter" (in contrast to the biologistic view of 19th- century reaction-LG) begins from the "observed fact...that all strong minorities--both within and without a High Culture--have welcomed into their company the outsider who was attracted to it and wished to join it, regardless of his racial provenance, objectively speaking. The racial snobbery of the nineteenth century was intellectual, and its adoption in a too-narrow sphere by the Resurgence of Authority in Europe between the two World Wars was a grotesquerie."(16)


"...'safeguarding the purity of race' in a purely biological sense is sheer materialism.
Race, in both its meanings, is the material of history, not the reverse...To the twentieth- century outlook, a man does not belong to a race; either he has race, or does not. If the former, he has value to History; if the latter, he is valueless, a lackey."(17)


Following this critique of biological racism, Yockey spells out his own view:

"...Western policy has the duty of encouraging in its education of the youth its manifestations of strong character, self-discipline, honor, ambition, renunciation of weakness, striving after perfection, superiority, leadership--in a word--Race."(18)


As with race, so with narrow nationalism:

"Provincial patriotism of the nineteenth- century type can evoke no response. The unity of the West which the barbarian has always recognized is recognized at the last hour by the West itself."(19) .


It was the Slansky show trial in Czeckoslovakia in 1952 which brought Yockey's "National Bolshevism" to its final form, in which he transposed the German-Russian "Rapallo" strategy of the interwar period to the new world situation of U.S.-U.S.S.R. polarization, now advocating that Europe as a whole should ally with the Soviet Union, as the lesser danger, against the greater menace of the United States. Along with this view (articulated at a time when most Nazis and other far-rightists were virulently anti- Soviet) went Yockey's revival of Haushofer's call for full support for Third World struggles of national liberation, for the purpose of weakening the U.S. world empire. By executing 11 Jewish members of the Czeck Communist Party, the Stalinist bloc was signaling, in Yockey's view, that it was ready to abandon the last pretenses of "Jewish-inspired" proletarian internationalism and fully assert the "barbaric" culture of the peasant masses which had been the other force of the revolution.

Yockey laid this out in his 1953 book The Enemy of Europe. In this shorter work, Yockey more sharply rejects, in his own barely-coded language, the "nineteenth-century" aspects of Nazism:

"the engrafting of the outworn nonsense of the vertical race notion onto the glorious European Resurgence of Authority brought about by the European Revolution of 1933 was an enormous tragedy"(20)


Yockey argued that unless Europe unified around a "Prussian-ethical Future", the "nation-building Ethic of Authoritarian Socialism" then

"the Europe of 2050 will be essentially the same as that of 1950, viz. a museum to be looted by barbarians, a historical curiosity for sightseers from the colonies; an odd assortment of operetta-states; a reservoir of human material standing at the disposal of Washington and Moscow; a loan market for New York financiers; a great beggars' colony, bowing and scraping before the American tourists."(21)


Yockey's basic view, drawing on his Spenglerian categories, was that the rule of the "culture-distorters" (i.e. the Jews) who had "taken power" in the U.S. in Roosevelt's New Deal, posed a greater threat to Europe that the Soviet Union, which was merely a peasant-barbaric society. If the Soviet Union conquered Europe, in Yockey's analysis,

it would finally be "Europeanized" in the same way so many barbaric conquerors (e.g. the Mongols) had been culturally absorbed in the past by the peoples they conquered. The U.S., on the other hand, had in Europe a stratum of willing "traitors", the "churchills, degaulles, adenauers", et al. (Yockey relished writing their names in the lower case) who were willing to be the flunkies of American domination. Whether by sparking a European uprising against Soviet domination or by absorbing the Soviet bloc into a European super-state organized along the lines of "Authoritarian Socialism", Soviet control of Europe was preferable to the ongoing rule of the pro-American stratum of "traitors".

Thus: a culturally-based rather than biological theory of race, a rejection of narrow nationalism for a European super-state conceived along the lines of Carl Schmitt's Grossraumordnung, and a pro-Soviet, pro-Third Worldist "tilt" against U.S. world hegemony are the core of "orthodox Yockeyism", and have been taken over, as one source, into the contemporary European New Right by theoreticians such as Alain de Benoist (France), Jean-Francois Thiriart (Belgium) and Aleksandr Dugin (Russia). As indicated earlier, the anti-universalism which Yockey got from Spengler (cultures do not interpenetrate, Jews and blacks are not part of the West because they are bearers of "other cultures") is strangely echoed by contemporary leftist post-modernism's (e.g. Edward Said) view that cultures confront each other as invariably distorting "texts"(22) .

This distillation of "orthodox Yockeyism", however, hardly begins to do justice to Kevin Coogan's book on Yockey. By focusing on ideology, we are neglecting Coogan's painstaking reconstruction of Yockey's political activities from the mid-1930's until his suicide in FBI custody in 1960.

We are neglecting in particular Yockey's peripatetic life on the fringe of the far-right fringe (as indicated, his one U.S. promoter, Willis Carto, rejected both Yockey's culturalism and his anti-Americanism). But above all we are neglecting or downplaying Coogan's detailed history, through the prism of Yockey, of the post-1945 international fascist regroupment which in many ways is as or more interesting as the account of Yockey himself. Coogan devotes major space and rich detail to important fascist intellectuals such as the Italian Julius Evola (who wrote an important favorable review of Imperium in 1951), as well as Yockey's connections to and influence on the entire Nazi network that escaped into exile in Latin America and the Middle East after the war. In addition to the portraits of Spengler, Schmitt and Haushofer in the formation of Yockey's own thought, Coogan provides remarkable detail on the cultivation, in these circles, of esotericism (Evola's books, often with no reference whatever to his lifelong fascist leanings, can be found in any New Age bookstore in the U.S. or Europe today). He shows the far-right uses of J.J. Bachofen's theory of matriarchy (which also influenced Marx and Engels) and of the sexual theories of Otto Weininger, who argued that every culture is aligned somewhere on a spectrum between absolute poles of masculine and feminine. Some Nazis had used Weininger's theories to buttress their own views of the subordination of women, as part of a general view of contemporary democracy as a largely feminized society in which the old warrior values had been eroded. Coogan provides material on the Rumanian anthropologist Mircea Eliade, who in the 1930's had been a vocal intellecual and activist of the fascist Iron Guard in that country, (a fascist movement whose sadism toward Jews nauseated even the German SS officers during the war!) and who became a world-renowned professor at the University of Chicago.

Last but not least, Coogan delves into the history of the political activities of these networks. The story of Evola leads into the "strategy of tension" of the terrorist far-right in Italy up to the 1970's, with murky connections to the clandestine armed network called Gladio which was established under U.S. auspices in Italy (with direct counterparts in other major European countries) for purposes of armed action against the Italian left and a possible Soviet invasion. Perhaps most remarkable in Coogan's account are the activities of the Naumann Circle, a group of ex-Nazis who developed "astonishing influence" in various nationalist regimes (e.g. Nasser's Egypt) and movements (e.g. the Palestinians, first of all through the well-known pro-Nazi Grand Mufti of Jerusalem). Hjalmar Schacht, Hitler's finance minister, became a consultant in Nasser's Egypt and negotiated deals for German industry aimed at undercutting Anglo-American deals with Egypt and with Mao's China. Nasser hired the former Nazi manager of the Skoda armaments factory in Czechoslovakia to upgrade Egypt's military, and in 1955 the Skoda works, now under Stalinist rule, concluded a major arms deal with Nasser. (Here was "National Bolshevism" point-blank.) Coogan tells the equally remarkable story of the new fascist and "red-brown" currents in Russia well before the collapse of the Soviet Union, with the sponsorship of anti-Semitism from the highest levels. Finally, he traces the evolution of certain "Yockeyite", "National Bolshevik" figures of the European far- right, such as Alain de Benoist, who broke with Jean-Marie LePen's National Front over the question of race, and came out for various Third Worldist movements, all the while propagating Indo-European paganism against "universalism" (code word for "Jewish" influence) and promoting Holocaust "revisionism" in Third World countries he visited. In 1992, de Benoist was at the center of a "National Bolshevik" episode in which far- right and Stalinist intellectuals participated in a forum to discuss what they had in common. Similar meetings have taken place periodically in Libya.

Thus Coogan's excellent book, starting from an obscure American fascist figure who has little currency in the far-right of his own country, takes us into the whole world of the international fascist revival since 1945, and in particular to the sophisticated cultural forms of race theory that have pushed aside the old biologism and national chauvinism, and the disconcerting ways in which this constellation of ideas of a "new fascism" has made its way into high cultural expression. Coogan's book is essential for an understanding of the "reactionary-radical" ideologies that are emerging to challenge the international communist project.

Notes

1-As the French writer Charles P(c)guy put it 100 years ago, "the slogan 'neither left not right' always means 'right'" ("qui dit 'ni de droite ni de gauche' dit de droite")
2-As Coogan points out, Carto rejected Yockey's rejection of biological racism and considered his pro-Soviet, anti-American stance more than a bit over the top.
3-The rejection of both the Soviet Union and the United States as two variants of "materialism" was a common theme on the European far-right from the 1920's onward.
4-These contacts included Walter Rathenau, a German-Jewish industrialist who advocated an advanced kind of corporatism as the solution to the "social question", and who was assassinated by the radical right in 1922.
5-Leo Schlageter was a German nationalist killed by French troops during the 1923 occupation of the Saarland, and who thus became a hero of the nationalist right and far-right. Radek announced the Schageter turn with a famous speech in Moscow entitled "Ein Wanderer Ins Nichts", "A Wanderer Into the Void".
6-Fischer's full statement was "he who denounces Jewish capital is already a warrior in the class war, even though he does not know it". (Cited in E.H. Carr, The Interregnum, p. 190.
7-It should be pointed out that in 1923, the KPD was not yet fully Stalinized and the Third International had not yet embraced the previously unheard-of theory of "socialism in one country"; thus the "Schlageter turn" of 1923 can be charitably interpreted as a foretaste of the full-blown "Third Period" policy of 1932.
8-It should not be forgotten that the full name of the Nazi Party in German was Nationalsozialistische Arbeiterpartei (NDSAP), the National Socialist Workers' Party. The National Bolsheviks, as indicated, looked down on the National Socialists with aristocratic disdain, but they emerged from the same ferment and the same "oscillation" (Jeam-Pierre Faye's term) between the Conservative Revolution and the proletarian revolution.
9-See the eccentric but highly informative book of Michael Agursky, National Bolshevism in the USSR,
(Boulder, 1987).
10-In far-right circles, it was common to consider thedefeat of Trotsky in 1928 as the defeat of the "Jewish" internationalism of the early revolution, and the victory of Stalin as the triumph of Russian nationalism.
11-The terms "core" and "periphery", more familiar from now-discredited 1960's and 1970's Marxist theories associated with figures such as Andre Gunder Frank or Immanuel Wallerstein, were actually first used by the ambiguous (to say the least) sociologist Werner Sombart to describe Germany's relationship to England and France. Cf. the key work of Joseph Love, Crafting the Third World (Stanford, 1996), for a detailed discussion of the migration of these concepts from Germany to Eastern Europe to Latin America. For an even more remarkable study of an Ottoman bureaucrat who theorized first Turkish and then Arab nationalism under the influence of German romantic philosophy, cf. Bassam Tibi Arab Nationalism (New York, 1980).
12-The book was published in 200 copies in 1948; quotations are from the 1962 New York edition.
13-Imperium, p. 282.
14-ibid. p. 285.
15-ibid. pp. 285-294.
16-ibid. pp. 300-301.
17-ibid. pp. 301-302.
18-ibid. p. 307.
19-ibid. p. 316.
20-F.P. Yockey, The Enemy of Europe, 1985 ed. p. 44.
21- ibid. p. 45.
22-See the devastating critique of Said's "provincial" relativism by the Syrian Marxist Sadek Jelal al-Azm, which has been reprinted in numerous places, including the journal Khamsin.


http://home.earthlink.net/~lrgoldner/yockey.html
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Fight Club, Evola and Secret Societies

Postby American Dream » Thu Jan 18, 2018 9:46 pm

Fascism in the USA: An Interview with Shane Burley

Image

BR: We have seen dissension in the ranks from women that were a part of the Alt Right movement now feeling denigrated by their fellow nationalists. Do you think that they will eventually split from the larger movement, or reject this entirely? What is the role for women, or femme people, in the Alt Right?

SB:
This is complicated, and it has changed dramatically over time. In the earlier days of the Alt Right, there seemed to be a larger opening to female contributors, though it was never a very large contingent. The Alt Right is defined by its inequality and essentialism, so women who were willing to offer a perspective that essentialized femininity to their "femaleness" were generally welcomed. In the earlier days of AlternativeRight.com there were some women contributing, and in the first print edition of the Radix Journal they even had a women of color contribute a chapter.

This definitely changed as we entered the Second Wave Alt Right, which was defined more by the subcultural trolling behavior on message boards and social media. The ideas never really changed, but the attitude and behavior did. Women were always ascribed a traditionalist role, but as we headed into 2015 they were seen increasingly as suspect. Again, this suspicion about women was always an integral part of the Alt Right. People like male tribalist Jack Donovan wrote about deeply felt mysogeny, his mysogeny, towards women. It wasn't until the Manosphere and Gamergate scenes merged, to a degree, with the open fascists in the Alt Right that the virulent anger towards women took center stage.

Now we are seeing the Alt Right essentially openly declare that women need to take a back-seat in the movement , a concept that stems from their belief that only men have the mental and spiritual capacity to lead revolutions. They have, for years, argued that women have lower IQs than men, citing the same pseudoscience that they use to denegrate people of African descent and to single out Jews. They go further and, in trying to ascribe personality types to broad groups of people, say that women lack the "faustian spirit" necessary for revolutions. They believe that women cannot be leaders in the movement because they are bio-spiritually unable, it must necessarily be run by men.

This perspective was even reflected by some women in the movement. Wife With a Purpose, for example, was a white nationalist pagan-turned-Mormon known for her videos, blogs, and Twitter feed. She would often say that her primary role was having babies, but still created a community around herself. Lana Lokeff, the co-host of Red Ice Media and the owner of the conspiracy-laden clothing company Lana's Lamas, also towed this line, while expecting that the Alt Right would respect her in a leadership role. As Alt Right 2.0 continues forward, and the mysogeny becomes more and more pronounced, they continue to be sidelined. As the #MeToo campaign came forward many leaders in the Alt Right, especially Richard Spencer, have turned on their female counterparts even more. This has created an unviable situation between them, and Alt Light figures like Lauren Southern are standing up against their inter-group treatment. This will likely not lead to internal reforms, their mysogeny is foundational and runs deep into their ideology. They believe that femininity is implicitly liberal and in the preservation of the status quo, and therefore they cannot be trusted unless they put extreme limits on female sexuality and self-expression. They believe that women lack key aspects of morality and critical thinking, basically ascribing them whatever negative qualities they can identify at any point and time with silly psuedo-science. The Alt Right's line is then to re-establish orthodox patriarchy rather than the vulgar woman hatred of the Manosphere, that way they can create systematic controls on women. Quite literally putting them in their place.

Their reaction to women in their movement and women across the board is with anger, and the Alt-Right Politics Podcast at AltRight.com even named women, broadly, as one of the "turncoats of the year." They seem to be doubling down on this hatred of women, and we can expect them to further marginalize themselves as they cut down their ability to create alliances.

Their treatment of trans people goes a step even further where they refuse to even accept their existence as legitimate. They repeatedly try to make the claim that trans people are the invention of a modern society in decadence, that it is the material excesses of the contemporary world that "invents" them. This actually draws on very traditional transphobia, where special hate is given to men that they feel gave up their "maleness" by becoming gender non-conforming.


Read more: http://www.hamptoninstitution.org/fasci ... mEoga3Mw01
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Fight Club, Evola and Secret Societies

Postby American Dream » Sat Jan 20, 2018 8:11 am

Alt-Right Trolls Plan to Crash Women’s March in Boston

Image
North Shore Antifa - January 19, 2018

The Cambridge/Boston Women’s March organizers describe Saturday’s rally as “an occasion to recognize the resistance efforts undertaken thus far, and to further mobilize our collective energies...
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Fight Club, Evola and Secret Societies

Postby American Dream » Thu Jan 25, 2018 11:07 pm

All of this, too:


BEYOND ALT

THE EXTREMELY REACTIONARY, BURN-IT-DOWN-RADICAL, NEWFANGLED FAR RIGHT.




The movement has a real problem with women.

Possibly because its members tend to be rejected by them.

First came the pickup artists, men who thought of women as conquests and shared tips on how to bed as many of them as possible, culminating in Neil Strauss’s official PUA manual, The Game. Eventually, as the PUA community drifted onto Reddit, members began to spend less time sharing seduction techniques and more time lodging bilious grievances against women. PUAs advocated a practiced machismo that would teach beleaguered males to combat a “feminized” society that sought to neuter them. When Donald Trump won the presidency, manosphere blogger Roosh V, who advocates the repeal of women’s suffrage, wrote, “I’m in a state of exuberance that we now have a President who rates women on a 1–10 scale in the same way we do.” Some #MGTOW (men going their own way) have decided to abstain from female company altogether. Instead, MGTOW enjoy sharing “pictures of hitting the wall” — before and after photos of women aging.

The manosphere thinks the world is a lot like The Matrix.

In that film, the main character, Neo, is offered a choice: Ingest a blue pill and live in a bland fantasy land, or ingest a red pill and see the world as it really is. The Red Pill is a popular sub-Reddit premised on the idea that women, by claiming to be victims, are given free rein to espouse misandry and generally run the world with impunity. Meanwhile, men are demonized. (Red pill — the manosphere version of being woke — has also been adopted to describe the broader alt-right worldview.)

And there are at least a few women who agree.

The Honey Badger Brigade is an all-female men’s-rights podcast started by three video-game enthusiasts — Karen Straughan, Hannah Wallen, and Alison Tieman — who championed the abusive anti-feminism of the Gamergate movement. One of their favorite topics is false rape accusations, and their chief concern is the scourge of “male disposability.”

If you hate women hard enough, it might even launch your career.

Mike Cernovich used to be married to a high-powered Silicon Valley lawyer, until their union was “ruined by feminist indoctrination.” After his divorce, he created a PUA website with a philosophy that boiled down to “misogyny gets you laid.” He rose to prominence when he volunteered his legal services (unlike his successful ex-wife, he took nine years to pass the bar) to the guy whose blog post about an ex-girlfriend launched the insane harassment onslaught of Gamergate. The publication of Cernovich’s first book, Gorilla Mindset: Timeless Strategies to Unleash the Animal Within You, coincided with Donald Trump’s presidential run. He used his growing online presence to attack Hillary Clinton, comparing her face to “melting candle wax” and speculating about invented medical ailments. Now, with 250,000 Twitter followers, he has declared himself a journalist, and the White House feeds him anonymous scoops.

17.
But (some) gay men feel welcome.

Jack Donovan — a 42-year-old skinhead icon and right-wing extremist — lived the gay life once. It was in the 1990s, after he left his parents’ blue-collar home in rural Pennsylvania to study fine art in New York, when he danced go-go in gay clubs hung out with drag queens and marched for gay pride. But then he dropped out, learned how to use tools and work as a manual laborer, studied MMA, and decided he wasn’t gay — just “an unrepentant masculinist.”

“I am not gay because the word gay connotes so much more than same-sex desire,” Donovan announced, under a pseudonym, on the first page of 2006’s Androphilia: A Manifesto: Rejecting the Gay Identity, Reclaiming Masculinity (echoing, probably unintentionally, the speech Tony Kushner wrote for Roy Cohn in Angels in America). “The word gay describes a whole cultural and political movement that promotes anti-male feminism, victim mentality, and leftist politics.” He appropriated a new term, androphile, to describe a man whose love of masculinity includes sex with other men.

Gay men are remarkably prominent — if not exactly abundant — in the alt-right universe. Take the infamous Milo Yiannopoulos, who powered a meteoric rise and fall on the sheer cognitive dissonance between his flamboyant self-presentation and callous politics. (When Out magazine profiled Milo, the story’s writer Chadwick Moore “came out as a conservative.”) Or artist turned reporter Lucian Wintrich, who joined the White House press corps when Trump-cheering blog Gateway Pundit (edited by a gay man) received its first credential. But even those men seem relatively mainstream when you compare them with Donovan, who has contributed to “dapper white nationalist” (and friend) Richard Spencer’s journal, advocates for a form of “anarcho-fascism,” and founded a chapter of a masculinist “tribe” called the Wolves of Vinland, which the Southern Poverty Law Center classifies as a hate group. (One member recently served time for burning down a historically black church.) Which makes sense when he shows me photos from their neopagan fight-club rituals, which sometimes involve nooses.

To hear Donovan tell it, his sexuality is a nonissue. It’s a point echoed by several of his peers, who don’t see their political views and sexual identities as contradictory but complementary. “Masculinity is a religion, and I see potential for androphiles to become its priests,” Donovan wrote in Androphilia, “to devote themselves to it” in a way that men who understand their manliness through women — in quantifying the number they’ve slept with or measuring “men’s rights” against “women’s rights” — can’t. And so androphiles like Donovan have found common ground with the gender-traditionalists and male-advocacy groups elsewhere in the messy carnival of the new right, where reactions to women range from outright hostility to benign disinterest. —Maureen O’Connor


18.
And Bard grads, too.

Image
Photo: Lucien WIntrich

Before 28-year-old Lucian Wintrich became White House correspondent for the paranoiac website Gateway Pundit, he went the more typical Bard-graduate route of staging art exhibitions. Wintrich, who is gay and says that Bard pushed him to rebel against a liberal, PC worldview, curated a photo series called “Twinks4Trump” — lithe young men in #MAGA gear (see above) — and “#DaddyWillSaveUs,” a pro-Trump art show at a New York gallery that didn’t allow him to publicize its name. Milo Yiannopoulos, then still a Breitbart personality, sat in a bathtub filled with cow’s blood, smoking a cigarette. “Good art should be transgressive,” Wintrich explained.

19.
The Gender Politics of the Alt-Right

Exhibit A: “Pictures of women hitting the wall,” from a manosphere website.

Image

Image


Exhibit B: “The fact is, when you give women rights, they destroy absolutely everything around them, no matter what other variable is involved … Even if you become the ultimate alpha male, some stupid bitch will still ruin your life.” —Andrew Anglin, the Daily Stormer

20.
They’ve created their own media ecosystem.

Image


Paul Joseph Watson
The YouTube sensation.

He calls himself a member of the “New Right.” He thinks multiculturalism “doesn’t work” and that Islam is bad; he is pro-Brexit, anti-feminism, and anti–Black Lives Matter. He despises modern art. He’s in his mid-30s, articulate and charismatic, and his YouTube channel has more than 900,000 subscribers. Watson has claimed that he is “red-pilling a generation”; he’s arguably the contemporary right’s biggest celebrity.

Just a few years back, he came across very differently. Terrorist attacks, now proof that Islam is “not a religion of peace,” were once CIA-backed false-flag operations. In a video from 2012, “How the Illuminati Controls the Music Industry,” Watson explains that pop music is loaded with “Illuminati symbolism” and “satanic symbolism.” Watson is the most famous protégé of Prison Planet and Infowars founder Alex Jones (the Walter Cronkite of the conspiracy community, who believes that the Sandy Hook school shooting was a hoax). Watson has said that he first became aware that the world was not what it seemed after watching Jones’s footage from Bohemian Grove, a campsite in California where powerful people are rumored to take part in elaborate satanic rituals.

Watson, and to a lesser extent Jones, are less openly cuckoo nowadays, but the Illuminati are still there beneath the surface. Go through the archives of Prison Planet and you can see how the Illuminati, trying to bring about the New World Order, become the Bilderberg group, then “globalists,” then “Leftists.” The labels change, but in many respects the story remains the same: a shadowy clique with a master plan behind politics, the finance sector, and the media.

And yet, for a group so vociferously anti-Establishment, the Infowars crew is veering extremely close to becoming a member of it. Trump has praised Jones and obviously reads Watson, as he’s retweeted him on several occasions; Jones claims Infowars was even offered White House press credentials, though Trump’s press department has denied it. For his part, Watson is staying one step ahead. His support for Trump has been retracted since the Syrian airstrikes, in a bold (and attention-getting) display of political independence. In “My Last Video?” — it wasn’t — Watson claims that he and a lot of other right-wing YouTubers are “about to disappear” because the mainstream media has tried to get him banned. They’re anxious, he suggests, about him out-competing them. —Nick Richardson

The Right Stuff Radio
The NPR of the alt-right.

A digital-media property that hosts more than two dozen podcasts, including Nationalist Public Radio, WKKK 1488, and The Daily Shoah. The Right Stuff publishes a glossary of terminology; the house style is flippant. “Ovenworthy,” reads one entry. “Anything that would be substantially improved by immediate incineration.”

The Daily Stormer
If Goebbels had a Tumblr.

Der Stürmer was a Third Reich tabloid that on a weekly basis advocated the extermination of Jews. In 2013, a bald-headed 28-year-old Ohioan named Andrew Anglin resuscitated it as a neo-Nazi message board called the Daily Stormer. Users — including, allegedly, Charleston shooter Dylann Roof — one-up each other Photoshopping images of Hitler or Pepe or kittens.

Chuck Johnson
The muckraking troll.

The former Breitbart writer is something of an alt-right media entrepreneur: He founded the muckraking publication GotNews and the crowdfunding site We-Searchr, which raises “bounties” for efforts like obtaining Hillary Clinton’s medical records. Johnson was also banned from Twitter after threatening to “take out” a leader of the Black Lives Matter movement. A busy man, he is also — terrifyingly — said to have advised the Trump transition team.

RT/Sputnik
Hotel-room propaganda.

Both are English-language media outlets owned by the Russian state. Each occupies a slightly different niche: RT is an international-news channel that aspires to be watched in expensive hotel rooms; Sputnik, formerly Voice of Russia, is a lower-profile radio and web outlet that relies upon aggregated and occasionally invented news. Each is committed to making Western democracies look unstable and corrupt; many alt-right obsessions can be traced back to Sputnik reports.

Image
Cassandra Fairbanks.

Cassandra Fairbanks
The Sanders convert.

A civil libertarian in the Julian Assange mold, 32-year-old Fairbanks discovered a passion for white nationalism and pedophilia-centric conspiracy theories after her preferred candidate, Bernie Sanders, lost the Democratic primary. Having built a large social-media following, she now writes for Sputnik. Her Twitter background reads FREE ASSANGE; her posts endorse Donald Trump’s military-obsessed “hard power” budget proposals.


The Whole Sordid Story http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... right.html
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Fight Club, Evola and Secret Societies

Postby American Dream » Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:05 pm

Why are women joining far-right movements, and why are we so surprised?

CLAIRE PROVOST and LARA WHYTE 31 January 2018

Women’s ‘shocking’ participation in far-right politics has received much media attention. But is this a new trend, or have we been here before?

Image
Marine Le Pen election campaign posters, France 2017.

Dozens of feature articles have recently marvelled at the increasingly female face of the far right in Europe and North America. The New York Times reported, for instance, on the increased visibility of women in the upper-echelons of far-right parties, from France to Norway. A Vogue feature described this as “the friendly face of right-wing politics,” and “an attempt to soften and feminise” the European far right’s extreme views.

In North America, numerous reports have asked what draws women to radical conservative and ‘alt-right’ movements. In Canada, the Montreal Gazette said far-right women are “coming out of the shadows” in Quebec to participate in anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim campaigns in growing numbers. Marie Claire said such apparent trends were nothing less than “shocking.”

The core question posed by such pieces is: Why are women joining far-right movements? But we must also ask: Why are we so surprised? After all, these issues are not new. “What attracts women to far-right movements that appear to denigrate their rights? This question has vexed feminist scholars for decades,” is how one historian put it.

“The uncomfortable truth is that women also have a long history in far-right movements.”


The far right is often seen or assumed to be toxically masculine and a no-go zone for women. But the uncomfortable truth is that women also have a long history in far-right movements. Women played key roles in white supremacist movements in the United States, for example, including as propagandists and figureheads.

“There’s no reason to expect women to be less bigoted than men,” historian Linda Gordon concluded. Her research into the Klu Klux Klan (KKK) estimated that at least 1.5 million American women were members in the 1920s, including one third of all white Protestant women living in Indiana.

“Women organised Klan rights of passage, baptisms, graduations, marriages and funerals,” Gordon said in a recent interview. Some women, who “may not have been vigilantes themselves, nevertheless, supported vigilantism.” she added.

Image
Women participate in a Klu Klux Klan march in 1928.
Credit: US National Archives and Records Administration. Public Domain.


In the 1990s, US academic Glen Jeansonne wrote about far-right women in America during the second world war, and the so-called “mothers’ movement” which opposed US intervention but was not pacifist; its ideology was instead a mix of militant Christianity, anti-communism and anti-Semitism, he said.

Twentieth century fascist movements in Europe were known for stressing women’s responsibilities at home. In Italy, conservative ideals of good Fascist mothers and wives were prominent in propaganda campaigns. Thousands of non-conforming women were locked in asylums for ‘moral deviancy’. In Germany, it was Kinder, Küche, and Kirche (children, kitchen, and church).

Our history books are products of our societies too. Historians have also been influenced by “prevailing prejudices about the ‘apolitical’ nature of women,” and women’s supposed “predilection for the domestic sphere,” noted one academic. Has women’s participation been overlooked because researchers assumed they were just subjects, or ‘victims,’ of far-right regimes?

“Has women’s participation been overlooked because researchers assumed they were just subjects, or ‘victims,’ of far-right regimes?”


“The common assumption [is] that fascism is a misogynist movement which has tended to exclude women,” according to researcher Martin Durham who contrasted this with cases of women’s active participation in fascist politics in France, Germany, Italy and the UK.

In Spain, the fascist Sección Femenina (SF) was “one of the most highly organised, mass women's organisation in Spanish history,” and a “formidable political force,” said one account. Among other things it organised social assistance programmes and mass vaccination campaigns.

The SF’s promoted an ‘ideal woman’ who was self-sacrificing and obedient to men, but it was also seen by some women as empowering as it recognised and respected their otherwise neglected labour caring for children and other relatives. In the 1960s, the SF also successfully lobbied for new legislation on women’s labour rights.

Image
Fascist propaganda picture from Spain, including the wife of Francisco Franco,
Carmen Polo de Franco (right).


In the UK, many historical reports also “overlooked the contribution of the women's movement to Britain's fascist experience,” and thus failed to examine how far some women went to support Oswald Mosley's ‘blackshirts,’ notes academic Julie Gottlieb.

Mosley’s movement even appealed to some former suffragettes. Though it has “traditionally been seen as predominantly an aggressively male movement,” there was “extensive participation of women,” said author Martin Pugh.

Some women received training in jiujitsu to throw female Communists out of meetings. Others went door-to-door to campaign for support and canvas for votes, presenting “a more reassuring image of fascism than that created by street violence and mass demonstrations.”

“Fascism’s relationship with women has been neither consistent nor predictable,” is Durham’s conclusion. While men may have been more visible in such movments, large numbers of women also participated as voters, members, fundraisers, marchers, party officials, and more.

“Fascism’s relationship with women has been neither consistent nor predictable.”


Women’s participation in a range of political movements has been ignored or written out of history. “We’ve had many social justice movements... led by men. A lot of women have participated in those movements, however their work has never been recognised,” said Carmen Perez, one of the co-chairs of the Women’s March movement in the US.

Can this help explain why we’re surprised at women’s participation in far-right politics? Could it be because we so rarely hear about women in radical politics, writ large? Meanwhile, what really motivates women to join such movements, and what do they gain out of their participation?

We are asking such questions on 50.50, the openDemocracy section covering gender and sexuality, in a special series on women and the far right. This series is part of an openDemocracy partnership with the World Forum for Democracy, which in 2017 focused on populism.

Series pieces include an in-depth feature on how the Italian media have helped the far-right group CasaPound to ‘glamourise’ fascism. 50.50 writer Claudia Torrisi looks at how the fascist movement is working to clean up its image and “build new political credibility” in the mainstream, ahead of this year’s national elections. The Italian media has been complicit in this process, she says.

Image
Carlotta Chiaraluce.


Continues: https://www.opendemocracy.net/5050/prov ... -surprised
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Fight Club, Evola and Secret Societies

Postby American Dream » Thu Feb 01, 2018 7:51 pm

Fascism Today: What It Is And How to End It

https://vimeo.com/253691428


GUEST: Shane Burley, writer and filmmaker based in Portland, Oregon. His work has appeared in ROAR Magazine, In These Times, Labor Notes, and make/shift. He is the author of the new book Fascism Today: What It Is And How to End It.

BACKGROUND: Donald Trump has been the dream president of the so-called Alt Right, a movement that has been quietly building up for years before November 2016. "The synergy between the activist far-right and a successful presidential candidate is something dangerously new," writes my guest Shane Burley in a new book called Fascism Today: What It Is And How to End It.

In it Burley explores not only the complex and even contradictory idealogies that comprise the "Alt-Right," but offers some concrete historical models for a broad-based mainstream American response to rising fascism could beat back the dangerous trend.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Fight Club, Evola and Secret Societies

Postby American Dream » Fri Feb 02, 2018 2:34 pm

The Terrifying Rise of Alt-Right Fight Clubs

White nationalists are learning mixed martial arts to prepare for race war.

Image

Mixed martial arts has a long and sordid relationship with white supremacists. But neo-Nazi-affiliated MMA outfits, like White Rex, a Russian clothing company and former fight promotion that helped launch Yankova’s career, have typically been confined to eastern Europe and Russia, where they have, well, something of a stranglehold over the far-right fringes of the sport. But now, inspired in part by emerging international talents like Yankova, groups in America, including Rise Above Movement in southern California, have helped popularize a particularly violent version of combat-ready racism, offering an example of how to advance white nationalism with perfectly executed strikes and takedowns, which have already been used with vicious effect in street battles in California and beyond.

Image
“Matches my mood,” Yankova wrote a month before her White Rex debut.

At her debut fight a month after her Hitler post, Yankova marched toward her opponent. The floor of the cage was emblazoned with a giant White Rex logo, a hybrid symbol of the swastika, the Nazi esoteric “black sun”, and the Russian Kolovrat, a swastika-like symbol popular with Russian white nationalists. The event, in Moscow, was titled “The Birth of a Nation,” a reference to the 1915 silent film of the same name, which glorified racial violence and is credited with reigniting the Ku Klux Klan. A “hatecore” band, You Must Murder, performed for the 2000 attendees, the tournament host was a former KGB operative, a contingent of the Russian Hells Angels motorcycle club flew a banner from the balcony, and the neo-Nazi Maxim “Tesak” Martsinkevich was reportedly invited to attend. There were 13 fights, Yankova’s the penultimate of the night. Yankova, in black tights, her hair braided back in rows, suffered a punishing first round but caught her opponent, Eleonora Tassinari, in an armlock 26 seconds into the second, winning by submission, and launching her career.

This wasn’t the first fight White Rex organized, or the first career it helped get off the ground. Founded by Denis Nikitin, the company started hosting a series of amateur tournaments in 2011 in Russia, and later fanned out into countries like Ukraine and Italy, where, in Rome in May 2013, they held a tournament in an abandoned subway station known as the Area19 compound, home to CasaPound, an Italian neo-fascist political party that claims to be the direct political descendant of Benito Mussolini’s Fascists. In Lyon, France, White Rex co-hosted MMA fights alongside the local branch of the neo-Nazi organization Blood & Honour.

White Rex’s events have featured guests with serious criminal backgrounds, including Erich Priebke, a convicted war criminal and former SS Hauptsturmführer—a Nazi Party paramilitary rank—and the convicted criminal “Tesak,” from the neo-Nazi group Format 18. (Tesak can also be seen wearing a White Rex shirt in a video he filmed of himself attacking a gay man in 2013. “I want to kill,” he said, “but I’m not allowed.”) In 2014, White Rex-linked fighters allegedly even brought their fighting skills to a far more militant cause in Wales—to train British white nationalists in underground combat training camps. Anton Shekhovtsov, an extremism researcher who recently published the book, Russia and the Western Far Right, wrote at the time: “British anti-terror police and the Home Office may want to keep a close watch on White Rex.”


Read more: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/20 ... ght-clubs/
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Fight Club, Evola and Secret Societies

Postby American Dream » Sat Feb 03, 2018 1:15 pm

‘Alt-Right’ Associate Who Wants Feminists to Be Raped Can’t Understand Why He Might Get Fired From a Charter School in DC

February 3, 2018 Idavox News

Image
John Goldman, aka "Jack Murphy" on the left with the BDU Washington Nationals baseball cap on, at a rally last spring outside the White House put on hy Richard Spencer.

Yeah, we know. John Goldman and his supporters are threatening lawsuits for anyone who calls him out as a Nazi, Fascist or whatever else he doesn’t want us to call them. So what say we lay out why it’s happening, shall we?

WASHINGTON, DC – An employee with the DC Charter School Board has been put on administrative leave after it was revealed that he was the author of a neo-fascist blog that has called for feminists to be raped, and has been associated with prominent neo-fascists.

According to news sources, John Goldman, a senior manager of finance, analysis and strategy with the charter school board had admitted to publishing the blog JackMurphyLive.com, via his assumed name “Jack Murphy”. The blog is decidedly far right, with Goldman suggesting that in one case since feminists have rejected a man’s “natural tendency towards dominance and women to passivity and submission,” it creates a “paradox” for which he offers a solution. “Rape is the best therapy for the problem,” he wrote. “Feminists need rape.” Curiously, he has used the threat of rape against Hispanic immigrants to this country, arguing that school districts should not fund education for immigrants, especially in the school district where his children attend, asking, “Is it worth educating, protecting, and defending illegal immigrants if it means our daughters will be raped while they are at school?”

Furthering his opposition to non-white immigration, Goldman also opined on implementing certain measures to slow it down if not stop it completely. “Build the wall, severely curtail immigration, and double down on investments in the U.S. labor force,” he said. My restatement: “Keep the brown folks out, don’t let anyone in that isn’t from white European countries, and restore the feudal state.”


Continues at: http://idavox.com/index.php/2018/02/03/ ... ool-in-dc/
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Fight Club, Evola and Secret Societies

Postby American Dream » Mon Feb 05, 2018 11:03 am

Alexander Reid Ross & Shane Burley - Fascism Today


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mR4eLF01lEU

Alexander Reid Ross, author of "Against the Fascist Creep" in conversation with Shane Burley, author of "Fascism Today: What It Is and How to End It" recorded February 2, 2018 at University Book Store in Seattle.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Fight Club, Evola and Secret Societies

Postby American Dream » Wed Feb 07, 2018 11:07 am

Men’s-Rights Activism Is the Gateway Drug for the Alt-Right

Image
Christopher Cantwell

Cantwell has not always been a figurehead of the alt-right. The Long Island native first gained notoriety as a cop-hating libertarian after moving to Keene, New Hampshire, in 2012 to take part in the the Free State Project, a quixotic political movement with the goal of turning the state into a haven for “free people.” He’s affixed various labels to himself over the years as his politics have transmogrified: anarchist, anarcho-capitalist, atheist, asshole. Perhaps the most revealing of his political past selves? Christopher Cantwell, men’s-rights activist.

During 2014 and 2015, Cantwell posted regular men’s-rights screeds to his blog on subjects ranging from Elliot Rodger’s murder spree to the reasons why men and women “are not, cannot, and should not be equals.” In one particularly overwrought post on “rape accusation culture” that was later republished on the then-popular men’s-rights site A Voice for Men, he warned fellow men of the alleged dangers of false accusations from vengeful women.

“No evidence necessary, just point your finger, ladies, and men will go to prison,” he declared. “Just say the word and their reputations and careers will be ruined. Simply bat your eyes at a policeman and he’ll snatch up any ex-boyfriend you feel jilted by.”

Cantwell is hardly the only alt-rightist with a past as a men’s-rights activist. Media gadfly, “sick Hillary” conspiracy theorist, and self-help guru Mike Cernovich was known for his men’s-rights talk before he turned to Trump and the alt-right — though he now claims to have broken with the movement. Canadian YouTube “philosopher” Stefan Molyneux declared himself an MRA long before he became a darling of the alt-right (and he recently conducted an interview with the author of that notorious Google memo, James Damore). Peter Tefft, a young man with a fashy hairdo who was famously disowned by his family after being outed as one of the torch-carrying marchers in Charlottesville, went through a men’s-rights phase before declaring himself a fascist, according to his nephew in an interview with CNN.


Read more: https://www.thecut.com/2017/08/mens-rig ... right.html
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Fight Club, Evola and Secret Societies

Postby American Dream » Mon Feb 12, 2018 2:35 pm

Class Combat

Image

Like many things, it’s a matter of geography. The growth of the far right has been strongest in the American hinterland, particularly in rural areas that hardly benefited from the financial boom of the Bush Years, suffered inordinately during the economic crisis, and then found themselves excluded from the “recovery.”[4] These are areas like Josephine County, OR, where budget shortfalls are so severe that the Sheriff’s office can’t offer emergency services beyond limited hours and areas, the Sheriff himself suggesting that those at risk of domestic violence simply relocate to better-funded counties. In response, the local Oath Keepers (now known as the “Citizen Patriots of Josephine County”) moved in the fill the gap, offering their militia in place of the police, running emergency-preparedness classes and engaging in a number of minor electoral campaigns and community outreach projects.

The Oath Keepers in Josephine and elsewhere, recruiting primarily from veterans and former first-responders, are one umbrella organization within a much wider “Patriot Movement,” designating the new militias and their related organizations. Though increasingly associated with the “Alt Right,” the Patriots precede the neologism by several years and tend to wield a membership and organizational capacity far beyond what is common among other groups that fall under the label. The movement itself is internally diverse, fusing traditional libertarianism with remnants from the old militia movement of the 1990s and new Islamophobic organizations. It operates on an “inside-outside” organizing model, engaging in both formal grassroots electoral campaigns (largely attempts to enter local government or elect minor representatives into the Republican Party) and extra-state organizing via militias and community outreach organizations. Much of the overt white supremacy found in the militia movements of previous decades has here been shed in favor of an emphasis on class conflict with “globalist” elites in coastal cities, combined with open, militaristic Islamophobia and a toned-down, veiled racism toward the more diverse underclass of urban areas, who are seen as being in league with the elites via the patronage mechanisms of the democratic party apparatus.

Image
A group of Oath Keepers in Josephine County during the Sugar Pine Mine conflict.

Patriot groups grew with remarkable speed in the Obama years, vastly outpacing the more traditional white supremacist organizations like the KKK and, by all evidence, still far outnumbering any one of the major factions within the “Alt Right.” According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, the movement grew from a mere 129 Patriot groups in 2008 to 1,274 in 2011 (compared to 334 non-Patriot militia organizations and a total number of 1,018 hate groups identified in the same year). Meanwhile, prominent armed standoffs between Patriot organizations and the federal government (namely the Bureau of Land Management) at the Bundy Ranch in 2014 and on the Malheur Wildlife Refuge in 2016 helped to launch the movement into the mainstream. At its height, the broadly-defined movement, including its religious offshoots (such as the Bundy family’s far-right Mormonism) had an active national membership somewhere in the thousands, with a nominal or secondary “supporter” membership in the tens of thousands, all amplified through extensive social media outreach.[5] Militia movements such as this have tended to peak under Democratic presidencies, and while the growth of Patriot groups has predictably stalled under the Trump administration, it has also become more institutionalized, with Patriot politicians elected to office and bills to devolve control of federal lands to local governments introduced to Congress.

Though the Patriots glory in their “tactical” aesthetic, even sending recruits to border patrols where they can learn basic military procedures, they are in many ways simply an umbrella organization of weekend-warrior types, often drawn from wealthier commuter-exurbs. In most cases, their calls to defend “freedom” and the “people” against the tyranny of the federal government are in reality actions undertaken to protect the Carhartt Dynasty of local landowners and industrialists in slightly-further-out rural areas across the American West. Though they do outreach and some recruitment among the rural poor, their actions very rarely defend the interests of those at the bottom of class hierarchies in the countryside—support for migrant workers is notably absent, of course, but there is also effectively no central material support for the poorest white ruralites either. All of their major campaigns have been aimed at protecting the rights of landholders and petty capitalists from onerous rents charged by the state. Insofar as they are able to recruit from the white underclass, these recruits are then employed in the service of local elites who themselves are often thrown into opposition against the “globalist” elites of the cities. The militias, at their most effective, have merely acted as a particularly aggressive arm of certain factions within the capitalist class.

Though they enshrine certain military ideals, physical culture plays a less obvious role in the Patriots’ day to day practice. In contrast, other resurgent far-right groups have taken physical culture as their foundation. The most prominent is likely the Wolves of Vinland, a neopagan tribalist cult, organized like a biker gang and based around a land project they call “Ulfheim” near Lynchburg, Virginia, where they crowdfunded the construction of a traditional Viking longhouse. Much smaller than the Patriots, the Wolves have three major chapters, with organizational centers in Virginia, the Mountain States and the Pacific Northwest, as well as a larger propaganda wing called “Operation Werewolf” that yokes together the participation of smaller groups nationwide. Much of their material is distinguished by a well-designed subcultural aesthetic, with clean logos plastered on professional-looking photos of muscle-strapped white men standing near fires, their faces painted with runes and shoulders covered by animal pelts, all accompanied by terse taglines well-suited to distribution over social media.

Image
Jack Donovan and another member of the Wolves of Vinland,
unironically hardstyling beneath thick tendrils of white dreadlock.


Aside from this aesthetic, however, the Wolves have made physical culture into a sort of foundation for their day to day practice, helping to attract new recruits. They promote entry into local gyms, regularly hold MMA-style bouts of hand to hand combat at their meetings and gain attention through contact with prominent figureheads in weightlifting and martial arts circles. Jack Donovan, the head of the Wolves’ Pacific Northwest chapter, made headlines for the group through his affiliation with a well-known powerlifting gym in the Portland area,[6] speaking on the owner’s popular podcast and taking instagram photos with Fight Club author Chuck Palahniuk. In the broader sense, Donovan’s main talking points on masculinity and “becoming a barbarian” are drawn from an entire cultural current that extends far beyond the Wolves themselves, embodied in everything from Alex Jones’ conspiracy theories to Joe Rogan’s popular podcast advertising athletic wear and nutritional supplements—equal parts flamboyant, “alt-right” fascism, as popularized by internet troll celebrities, and homegrown cornbred-and-militia white nationalism. And this current is not limited to the US, either. Donovan has travelled to speak at far right events in Europe, where appeals to “tribal” or “indigenous” identity form an essential part of local nationalisms. Meanwhile, in Italy, the rightwing comedian Beppe Grillo, leader of the populist Five Stars Movement praised the election of Trump in similar terms as Donovan: “It is those who dare, the obstinate, the barbarians who will take the world forward. We are the barbarians!”

Trump Country
Looking outward from the wealthy coastal cities, the average liberal also sees little more than growing barbarity. Culture appears to have atrophied, replaced by thinly-veiled bigotry, people “clinging to guns and religion.” Faced with a rising tide of terror across the global hinterland, the ever-civil urbanite seeks to simply reinforce the walls of the palace—maybe also applying for a grant to paint an anti-wall mural on the wall, or to live in the watchtower as poet-in-residence—but ultimately bunkering down in the hopes that the inevitable return to reason will arrive shortly. Wait out the storm, they say in their quiet, polite voices. Hillary is an inevitability. But if you let the great violent noise of the political hurricane drown out these quiet voices and instead squint upwards, tracing the length of that wall until it ends amidst rain and thunder, you might also catch a glimpse of other barbarians patrolling the perimeter, their hulking shapes marking out the border of the urban palace itself.
Because the truth is that the rise of global barbarity is matched in the traditional imperial fashion: the empire draws in warriors from closer hinterlands to defend against domestic threat and foreign invasion. When the choice seems to be, as always, communism or barbarism, the liberal chooses barbarism every time. The choice invariably takes the disguise of defending against greater barbarities to come, even while it forms their foundation. In the short term, cops can commute in from the whitening, Trump-voting exurb to patrol the financial district or quell uprisings across the inner ring suburban slums. In the long term, the bureaucrat tends to cultivate a militant tribalism that threatens dynastic stability.

Seen from such distance, that vast terra incognita called “Trump Country” tends to be understood less as a result of crisis than as a sort of widespread moral failure in which wrong ideas among poor whites have, in turn, generated the economic crisis in these areas through the election of anti-tax Republicans. The utter collapse of the industrial structure (and thus the actual tax base of such counties) is thereby elided. It also becomes possible to all-too-easily attribute things such as the election of Trump to a single demographic: that mythically homogeneous “white working class.” The existence of large swaths of non-white rural poverty (in the Dakotas, in the Mississippi River Delta, across the Southwest) is simply ignored, and the features of present-day rural white poverty (as elsewhere: persistently high unemployment, low incomes, prominent black and grey markets, increasing rates of incarceration, rising mortality, morbidity and drug addiction) are seen as moral failures precisely because liberal privilege politics falsely extrapolates individual characteristics from general statistical trends in the racially-unequal distribution of power.

In short: because whites generally wield disproportionate political, economic and cultural power, poor whites are seen as having no good excuse for being poor. The only explanation seems to be that they must have failed at some personal level to cash in their “privilege,” even if they are, for example, an unemployed youth taking care of opiate-addicted family members in McDowell County, West Virginia, where life expectancy falls somewhere between the average rates in Nepal (for men) and Nicaragua (for women). This is essentially the liberal equivalent of the die-hard conservative living in a house bought with a hefty inheritance, complaining about how “minorities” squander all that money the government supposedly gives them for free. But the “white working class” is a manufactured antagonist (or protagonist for some of the ascendant socialist groupings) defined by conservatives’ vague nostalgia for the brief postwar industrial compromise. As with all forms of nostalgia, the image misportrays the past in the name of an obscured present. The irony here is twofold: first, it lies in the fact that the only workers who comes close to experiencing the conditions nostalgically associated with this “white working class” in the postwar era are, in fact, urban workers in high-end services, information technology and a small number of (now highly mechanized) remnant Fordist manufacturing firms like Boeing—in short, one of the base demographics for liberalism itself. Second, there is irony in the fact that this handful of workers experiencing the conditions most similar to that of the historic “white working class” are precisely those most likely to demonize poor whites, who mostly do not vote, for catapulting Trump into the presidency. Instead, all evidence points to the fact that Trump was elected with a more diverse base of support than initially suspected, and higher-income whites composed a substantial portion of this base. Thus, the mirage of a “white working class” as the vanguard of Trumpism tends to obscure both class stratification within the white population and the actual conditions lived by those on the lower rungs of the white proletariat, historically derided as “white trash.”


http://www.ultra-com.org/project/class-combat/
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Fight Club, Evola and Secret Societies

Postby American Dream » Wed Feb 14, 2018 1:14 pm

Happy Valentine's Day, y'all!


Meet The Dominatrix Who Requires The Men Who Hire Her To Read Black Feminist Theory

Mistress Velvet is a dominatrix with a syllabus.

The Chicago-based master’s graduate got her start in professional BDSM a few years ago. “I thought, well this could be something really fun, and it’s a lot of money, so why not try,” she told HuffPost.

Image

Individuals hire Mistress Velvet to be their “Domme,” the person who takes the dominant role in a dominant/submissive relationship or arrangement. She says most of her clients are white, cisgender men.

Though initially driven by pride after her first client questioned whether she had the temperament for the gig, Mistress Velvet found the work personally rewarding, which motivated her to dive in long term.

Over time, Mistress Velvet said she began “doing a lot of theorizing” about the power dynamics of a black woman holding that kind of supremacy over a white cisgender man. She began introducing black feminist theory into her sessions with clients, who’ve told her their relationship in that space has impacted their behavior outside of it.

One client said he noticed he only held the door open for black women. Another, whom Mistress Velvet educated about the systemic oppression of black women, founded a nonprofit to support black mothers on Chicago’s South Side.

Mistress Velvet spoke with HuffPost about how her clients react to their assignments, BDSM as a space for black women’s healing, and diversity and privilege in sex work.

How did you get started as a dominatrix?

I got started a couple years ago when I was working full time. I was like, I need more money, or I’m going to get evicted. I had a friend who had done it for six years, and it seemed really interesting. I asked her more about it, and I thought, well this could be something really fun, and also it’s a lot of money, so why not try.

I was not good at it at all. My first client ― he was so nice. After a few attempts, he said, “Honestly, you will never be a Domme,” because I would apologize every time I hit him.

I think that him saying that ― it kind of felt like a challenge to myself: I can be a Domme, I can do this.

When did it go from that, from proving you had the ability, to something you were motivated to do for yourself?

My relationship with it has definitely changed. Of course, it provides economic stability first and foremost. When I started, I was engaging in survival sex essentially, because I needed to make money and not get evicted and get out of this relationship that I wasn’t enjoying.

Eventually, I realized, wow, I’m emotionally invested in my clients. They’re getting this safe space. The ways that patriarchy impacts men, they can’t really be submissive in a lot of contexts. They come to me looking for a safe space to explore the parts of them that may not be seen as masculine, or they might have a lot of shame around. They may not have opportunities to be their full selves in a lot of ways, including sexually, because of those societal constraints.

I really liked that aspect of it, and that’s what drew me to it more. Also, I was doing a lot of theorizing about it.

Image
Mistress Velvet incorporates academic readings into sessions with mostly white, male clients.

Can you elaborate on that? When did you start to introduce theory about power dynamics into that power dynamic?

I would say, first and foremost, that I describe it as a form of reparations ― not in a systemic way like we’re getting land back, but definitely on an individual level, it provides me with an emotional sense of reparations. That’s because of the nature of the dynamic ― that [my clients] usually are white men, that they’re straight, and they’re usually pretty well-off to be able to sustain a relationship with a Domme.

I started to think more about my relationship with them. A lot of them were asking questions. Some people were saying, “This is really impacting me in terms of how I think outside of our sessions.” A client said he started to notice he would only hold the door open for black women. One client started an organization for black single mothers in the South Side of Chicago.

Just allowing them to be submissive doesn’t allow for the more drastic shift in the framework and thinking that I want. So I have to bring in my girls, like Audre Lorde and Patricia Hill Collins, and make these men actually read about black feminism.


More at: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mi ... cc923d4eba
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Fight Club, Evola and Secret Societies

Postby American Dream » Fri Feb 16, 2018 3:22 pm

Blood, Red, MAGA: What We Know About the Parkland Shooting

Image

Andrew Anglin, the figurehead behind The Daily Stormer, spoke to this reality, when he wrote about his desire for young and broken white men to discover their meaning through violence and war, as he wrote the following in the lead up to the Unite the Right demonstration in Charlottesville, which he ironically did not attend:

We feel emasculated.
Many of us feel we have never had power.
We crave power.
We lust after power. We want to be part of a group, which will give us power. A group that will confirm our worth as men.
We do not have identities.
We want identities.
We want to be productive. All men want to be productive. We want to build, we want to create, we want to be needed.
We have problems with women. All of us do. We lie to each other and claim that we do not. But we all do.
We are a generation of throwaways, which (((those who write history before it happens))) have slated to be the last generation of Heterosexual White Men.
We are angry.
There is a atavistic rage in us, deep in us, that is ready to boil over.
There is a craving to return to an age of violence.
We want a war
.


More at: https://itsgoingdown.org/blood-red-maga/
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 34 guests