For example, I believe in Leninist organization norms. I like the combo of flexibility and ruthlessness. Furthermore, I like the item of internal debate while showing a monolithic party to the world. You have your debate and then you decide. When the decision to act is reached, the fingers come together as as fist.
Does that make me a Leninist? Not at all. It simply means that I think he came up with an effective means of organizing a revolutionary party. Actually, the Leninist party structure, per se, is politically neutral and can be used by left or right. In the mid-1960s, Jean Thiriart reorganized Jeune Europe–usually described as Far Right & neoFascist–on a Leninist & cellular basis. That’s one point only where I take a leaf from Lenin. I certainly don’t embrace the utopian claptrap of his book STATE & REVOLUTION.
A better analysis of how a revolution actually comes about is found in the Theory of the Circulation of Elites by the great sociologist Vilfredo Pareto who is situated on the Right. Pareto defines the conditions of revolution as follows: The political system freezes–often coupled to a crisis of civilization–which prevents any renewal or reform of the system. This causes the creation of a counter-Elite. In turn, we see the swing of the neutral Elite of civil servants, law enforcement and ranks of the military over to the counter-Elite. Eventually the masses come over. (This is also similar to the schema of Francis Parker Yockey.)
Curzio Malaparte said it was Trotsky’s tactics and not Lenin’s strategy which won the Bolshevik Revolution. I agree. Does this make me a Trotskyist? Hardly. I simply agree that Trotsky showed you have to assure neutrality, if not outright support, of the military and law enforcement for a revolution to succeed. Hitler also proved the same thing. Saying this doesn’t make me an NS or 88er. These are simply examples of tactics which worked in the West.
I’ve also written approvingly of the organizational methods of the French Trotskyist group, LUTTE OUVRIERE. I noted that they are the only grouping I know of in the West that grasped the nature of Leninist party norms. They successfully combine open and clandestine work while keeping out infiltrators. If outlawed, they can go underground in 30 seconds. (Or at least rapidly). Does this, again, make me a Trotskyist? No, and what for? Trotskyism was irrelevant after 1934.
On occasion, I’ve expressed some grudging respect for Stalin. Does this make me a Communist? No. I came out of the National Renaissance Party of James Madole. Madole agreed with our Party’s real theoreticians–Francis Parker Yockey and Fred Weiss–that by 1939 Stalin had liquidated the original cosmopolitan & Leninist leadership of the Revolution in favor of a very nationalist form of socialism. Dare we say National Socialism? The NRP regarded Stalinism as a nationalist form of totalitarian rule and a valued ally against the International Money Power and the Plutocracy. Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke in his book BLACK SUN bears this out.
For the record it should be noted that Madole and I agreed with Yockey in his book THE ENEMY OF EUROPE that the time of class struggle had passed in the West. And Madole and I both endorsed the thesis of Lawrence Dennis in his 1936 book, THE COMING AMERICAN FASCISM. In the midst of the Great Depression, Dennis called for an anti-Communist and Nationalist alternative to Communist Proletarian Revolution.
The best example of borrowing (or stealing) something useful even from one’s enemies comes from the great German Panzer General, Heinz Guderian. The British invented the tank during World War I but only conceived of its use for defensive purposes. After the war, a young French officer named Charles de Gaulle wrote a book, THE ARMY OF THE FUTURE. In it, he proposed using the tank, actually lots of them, as an offensive weapon. Not only that, but coordinating its use with aircraft and the like. The French brass ignored him. But Heinz Guderian read his book as did Erwin Rommel. The rest is history.
All of which brings me to the purpose of this spiel. My inclusion of a quote by the late Oriana Fallaci in my Blog on “Yockey and the Western Imperium” was not intended as an endorsement of her overall politics. Her quote was meant to be seen as one extreme look at the changing demographics in Europe. And it did provoke comments, most of them hostile. Go back to the Blog and see the replies by Norman Lowell and ‘Francesco’.
Fallaci’s take on what she says is the ‘Islamic invasion of Europe’ is at once hysterical and impractical. But what do you expect? As brave and courageous as she is, her response to 9/11 was to favor everything the Bush-Cheney Junta did including the war against Iraq. We would expect that out of a Dennis Miller or Jon Voight; but not from someone as intelligent as Oriana Fallaci.
She talks of crisis and invasion. Yet she offers nothing but screams of impotent rage. There is no unitary Islamic force; no Caliphate, no Ottoman Empire. As Oswald Mosley acknowledged before his death, repatriation is now wholly impractical. Too many people, here too long. They’re not going anywhere. I don’t think Yockey would join Oriana in embracing the Bush Doctrine.
The purpose of Fallaci’s quote was to show one possible extreme Yockey might go to in a new situation. I think Yockey would go radical in a different direction, embracing instead the ideas of Jean Thiriart. Thiriart would expand Europe to both sides of the Mediterranean, with the Sahara as the Southern border of Europe. This would mean incorporating the Mahgreb and Turkey into the European Union and a policy of Exogamy of the European peoples.
The debate continues.