Christophe Dolbeau is a former professor and historian. This article was first published in the French magazine Tabou (31, Editions Akribeia, 2024) —the original title of the essay in French is “Les femmes et l’Ordre Nouveau” (“Women in the New Order”). The translation into English for TOO was done by the author himself. The editing and some slight adaption of the text below was done by Tom Sunic.

Go to Part 1.
Go to Part 2.

United Kingdom

Female activists of the BUF

If there was a European country where the New Order made a strong appeal to the female public, it was the United Kingdom. In 1923, young Rotha Lintorn Orman (1895–1935), a former military ambulance driver, launched the British Fascisti, a small combative movement for which the influential conspiracy historian Nesta Webster (1876–1960) lent full support. Along the similar line of support, one must mention the geographer, explorer and suffragette Bessie Pullen Burry (1858–1937).

In fact, these ladies were only precursors given that it was Sir Oswald Mosley himself (1896–1980) who provided the real voice for the movement when launching on October 1, 1932 the British Union of Fascists (BUF)(43). Led by this talented leader who was a great orator, the new movement quickly marked success with a rapidly growing membership. Unexpectedly, women seem to have been particularly interested in joining the movement to the point of representing at least 20% of the BUF members, a good third of supporters. Among the most distinguished recruits, one must mention Fay Taylour (1904–1983), a motorcyclist (speedway) and automobile racing champion, Commander Mary Sophia Allen (1878–1964), the founder of a women’s police force, an aviatrix and a former suffragette, or even the actress, novelist and playwright Joan Morgan (1905–2004). From its beginnings, the BUF had a women’s branch, the Women’s Section, whose cells spread throughout the country. At the head of this structure, Mosley put strong-minded women: Lady Esther Makgill, followed later on by his own mother, Lady Katherine Maud Mosley (1874–1948), and Mary Richardson (1889–1961) (44). One must add the names of Anne Brock-Griggs (who passed away in 1960) and Olga Shore. Just like the men in the movement, female activists took part in the distribution of leaflets and electoral door–to–door visits. They took part in meetings, wore a special uniform and even had their own drum set. For all intents and purposes, some federations went so far as to offer them jiu-jitsu classes…

From a sociological point of view, it is interesting to note that the female recruitment of the BUF was quite varied. Just as it had its base in the working–class circles of the East End of London, Yorkshire and Lancashire, it also had success in posh circles of the gentry. In addition to the wives of Sir Oswald (45), the BUF received the support of Lady Dorothy Downe (1876–1957), the former lady–in–waiting of Queen Mary and goddaughter of King George V, of Lady Clare Annesley (1893–1980), a former pacifist and socialist, Lady Howard of Effingham (1912–2000), and Lady Pearson (1870–1959), who was a great benefactress of the blind and visually impaired. Alongside these aristocrats, one could come across vocal grassroots activists, such as Olive Hawks, Nellie Driver (1894–1956) or Lucillia Reeve (1889–1950), a pioneer of organic agriculture, a poet and … a dowser.

In a brochure published by the movement (46), Anne Brock–Griggs explains what women could expect from the Mosley government, namely eligibility (the right to vote had been granted in 1928), a salary equal to that of men, free access to all professions (including in the fields of law, medicine, architecture and engineering), better work security, better medical protection, better housing, better education, better nutrition and increased well–being for mother and child. For former feminists and suffragettes joining the BUF was only a continuation of their previous struggle. “The women’s struggle,” writes Norah Dacre–Fox (1878–1961), aka Norah Elam, “resembles closely the new philosophy of Fascism. Indeed, Fascism is the logical, if much grander conception of the momentous issues raised by the militant women a generation ago. … Moreover, in the machinery of the Corporate State, Fascism assures women an equal status with their menfolk.” (47)

If further proof is needed regarding the eminent role of women in the BUF, let us remember the attitude of the authorities towards them. In 1940, when the government decided to neutralize Mosley’s movement and intern most of its leaders—nearly 800 people, several dozen women found themselves imprisoned in Holloway or Port Erin (Rushen Camp), on the Isle of Man (48). In order to avoid all risks, those in power were already practicing equality!

Belgium

Jetje Claessens (1912–1995)

The Kingdom of Belgium is also a European country where aspirations for a New Order emerged in the 1930s and 1940s. Citizens from the two national communities, the Flemish and Walloons, also became involved.

On the Dutch–speaking side, several nationalist movements and organizations were more or less inspired by the Mussolini model or demonstrated their interest in the German national socialist regime. The two most important movements were the Flemish National Union (Vlaams Nationaal Verbond—VNV) of Staf De Clercq (1884–1942)(49) and the Union of Dutch National Solidarists (Verbond van Dietse Nationaal Solidaristen—Verdinaso) of Joris Van Severen (1894–1940), the two of them having their own women’s sections. There was no prior exclusion of female members which was well proven by the trajectory of Maria Odile Maréchal-Van den Berghe (1881–1956), a member of the Women’s Union of the VNV (Vlaams Nationaal Vrouwenverbond—VNVV). She had been elected to the Provincial Council of West Flanders before getting later on a seat in the Kingdom’s Senate (1936)(50). Several other personalities acquired a certain reputation in this Flemish movement, such as the academician Marie Gevers (1883–1975), a member of the European Society of Writers (51), the novelist Jet Jorssen (1919–1990) who belonged to the DeVlag movement (52), Magda Haegens (1900–1992) who led the VNVV (53) or Jetje Claessens (1912–1995)(54) who headed the Dietse Meisjesscharen (DMS) or young girls of the VNV and the “kerlinnekes.” All these ladies contributed to the VNVV newspaper, the monthly Vrouw en Volk. In addition to sport, propaganda parades and doctrinal training for the young members, the activities of those ladies consisted of rather harmless tasks of social assistance, maternal aid and local community work. During World War II, they cooperated with the German Red Cross (DRK). Their workforce was far from negligible as shown by the fact that several thousand members gathered in July 1942 in the Duden Park of the city of Forest.

Among the French–speaking Walloons the leading figure of the New Order was Léon Degrelle (1906–1994) who launched in August 1935 the Front populaire de Rex (Rex Popular Front), often simply called Rex. Degrelle ’s movement had rapid growth from 1936, immediately attracting quite a few women. Their enthusiasm was partly due to the personal appeal of the leader but also to the attractive agenda of the movement. In its program, Rex declared itself in favor of universal female suffrage, the revision of the Napoleonic Code (which considered a married woman to be a legal minor) and a reform of the matrimonial regime. The Rex movement also called for the establishment of a family salary, the enhancement of the maternal function and special allowances for families with more than two children. It advocated a ban on pornography and supported the fight against prostitution. In fact, each section of the movement soon had its women’s service (domestic help, soup kitchens, summer camps, etc.) headed by Marguerite Manfroy (55). Those groups, initially not very large, expanded under the German occupation. At first, the movement launched the Jeunesses rexistes féminines (Young Rexist Female Youths—JRF) whose command was handed over to the “provost” Suzanne Lagneaux. These JRFs were divided into Compagnes rieuses (Laughing Companions—8 to 12 years old), Compagnes servantes (Servant Companions—12 to 16 years old), Amazones franches (Frank Amazons—16 to 18 years old) and Amazones (Amazons—18 to 21 years old). In November 1941, this first organization was supplemented by the Foi dans la Vie (Faith in Life), an association opened to young women aged 18 to 25 and chaired by the journalist Marguerite Inghels. The same lady, five months later (April 1942), also started the Mouvement féminin rexiste (Rexist Women’s Movement—MFR) by establishing five executive training schools. Inghels was the first leader in charge before handing over the position to Renée Demeter. Women were not absent from Rex’s war effort either. In 1943, several of them joined the Walloon Legion on the Russian front. Commanded by Jeanne Debeaune, they were active as nurses and as part of a Red Cross battalion. In order to ensure their training, the movement opened a specialized center, the École Marie de Bourgogne whose management was entrusted to Huguette Defroiche.

Overall, it can be said that the Rex accorded its female militants a very special role. It also showed them respect as illustrated by the appointment of Jeanne Raty (1902–1963), one of Léon Degrelle’s sisters) at the head of all the women’s structures of the movement.(56). Let us conclude that at the end of World War II both the Flemish and Walloon female leaders received harsh prison sentences—unless they deemed it appropriate to emigrate either to Spain or overseas. (57)

The Netherlands

Female activists of the NSVO

In the 1930s the Netherlands was also tempted by a desire for political change, and a growing number of Dutch people viewed favorably the events in Italy and Germany. The main figurehead favoring the New Order was the hydrologist Anton Adriaan Mussert (1894–1946)(58) who launched on December 14, 1931, the National Socialist Movement of the Netherlands (Nationaal–Socialistische Beweging der Nederlanden—NSB). Just like its sister parties in Belgium and elsewhere, the NSB created in 1938 a similar female structure known as the National Socialist Women’s Organization or Nationnaal–Socialistische Vrouwenorganisatie (NSVO). With 20,000–35,000 members, this group circulated its own publication De Nationaalsocialistische Vrouw, later renamed Nederlandsch Vrouwenleven. Similar to other countries its activities were essentially of a social and humanitarian nature: household help, nursing care, support for young mothers and future mothers, help for the disabled, etc. The first leader of the NSVO was Jeanne van Hoey Smith-van Stolk (1896–1971). When the World War II started and under the German occupation Baroness Julia Adriana op ten Noort (1910–1994), Elisabeth Keers-Laseur (1890–1997) and Olga de Ruiter-van Lankeren Matthes (1902–1982) became its chief figures. The last leader was Louise Marie Couzy (1903–1975). The best known of these women was undoubtedly Julia op ten Noort, a convinced Germanophile, who was close to Minister Rost van Tonningen (59) and his wife Florentine (1914–2007)(60), also having strong ties to the German SS boss Heinrich Himmler himself… In addition to its current recruitment, the NSVO also received support from some well-known literati such as the novelists Augusta van Slooten (1883–1951), Jo van Ammers–Küller (1884–1966), Margot Warnsinck (1909–1952) and Hilda Bongertman (1913–2004). There was also a youth group in the movement, the Nationale Jeugdstorm, which numbered between 12,000 and 16,000 members including many girls. One of their leaders was the sports teacher Lien van Eck (1912–1999). Finally, one needs to point out that in November 1941 a detachment of volunteer nurses left for Kyiv in Ukraine where it was in charge of a small mobile field hospital (Nederlandsche ambulance Oostfront) looking after the wounded of the SS Nederland Legion.

Once again one must stress that the Dutch supporters of the New Order did not oppress or degrade the role of women in any way. It is also interesting to note that for a long time the most ardent of those who were nostalgic for the Mussert regime were actually women. Following the end of the World War II the anti–fascist purges in the Netherlands were draconian in nature. By October 1945 women made up a quarter of political prisoners in the country (61).

Norway

Vidkun Quisling, Olga Bjoner (1887–1969) and a detachment of Kvinnehird

In Norway the champion of the New Order was Vidkun Quisling (1887–1945)(62). An officer, a diplomat and a former minister, on May 17, 1933 he launched the National Rally or Nasjonal Samling (NS) which demanded the end of the class struggle, the protection of the race, the adoption of a corporative economy, while also championing equal rights for women. The party’s emblem was the cross of Saint Olaf. If at first, the new formation had a hard time asserting itself during the elections, its recruitment started to flourish, soon attracting 30,000 members (in a country of only 3.3 million inhabitants). On May 14, 1934, the party established a women’s branch, the Nasjonal Samling Women’s Organization (Nasjonal Samlings Kvinneorganisasjon—NSK), which was sponsored by the “fører“ (guide, leader)—Quisling’s Russian-born wife, Maria Quisling (1900–1980). With its 15,000 members, the NSK provided the new political regime with undeniable influence. The first heads of the organization were Marie Irgens (1871–1945), an opera singer and a friend of the famous composer Edvard Grieg and Øyvor Hansson (1893–1975); Irgens was the former wife of a general of the Norwegian army. During the German occupation, the teacher and journalist Olga Bjoner (1887–1969) was in charge of the organization. She was also the editor of Heim og Ætt, the organization’s newspaper. Among the followers, some remarkable personalities need to be mentioned, such as the opera singer and playwright Cally Monrad (1879–1950), Ragna Prag Magelssen (1879–1961)—a great protector of animals, and Ragnhild Vogt Hauge (1890–1987), who was the first female psychiatrist in Norway. Well structured, the NSK, whose members were dressed in a specific uniform, had several hundred sections throughout the country. It also operated several (unarmed) paramilitary groups such as the NS Kvinnehird (63), the Kvinnenes Hjelpekorps (KHK or Women’s Auxiliary Corps), and the Norske Kvinners frivillige fronthjelp. In addition, the party’s youth movement, Nasjonal Samlings Ungdomsfylking (NSUF) had various sections designed to welcome young girls: Småhirden for 10-14-year-olds, and Gjentehirden for 14-18-year-olds. Norwegian women also took part in the anti-Bolshevik struggle with nearly 1,000 nurses volunteering for the Eastern Front. Only 500 of those “frontsøstre” (front sisters) were enlisted, with 300 still active by the end of the World War II.

In this Scandinavian country, as in the rest of New Order Europe, one cannot argue that the fate of women was particularly deplorable and blameworthy. For those who were committed to the Nasjonal Samling, the antifascist purges were severe but not as ruthless as in other post-World War II countries (64).

An Acceptable Assessment

At the end of this brief overview, it appears that the situation of women under the New Order regimes, parties or movements during the 1930s and early 1940s, was far from catastrophic as some contemporary historians claim. All these organizations seem to have shown great respect for the female community, whose members were generally treated with great esteem. Faithful for the most part to a traditional conception of the role of women and the role of the family the supporters of the New Order nevertheless entrusted women with important social, health and administrative responsibilities, while avoiding as far as possible to expose them to the rigors of political fistfights and warlike confrontations. For that matter in terms of the emancipation of women, the New Order did not do much better or worse than the democratic camp. Incidentally, let us recall that French women had to wait until 1944 to obtain the right to vote, and that in the pre-World War II French Third Republic none of them headed a large administration or a state enterprise. During the war, there were, certainly, a large number of female antifascist resistance fighters, but none played a high–level role. Moreover, in 1940–1945 none of them sat on the French National Committee or the French National Liberation Committee. Only one of them (Ginette Cros) belonged to the National Council of the Resistance with two of them being assigned to the Provisional Consultative Assembly of Algiers. In short, the so–called emancipation of women during the New Order was not that bad.

---

Notes

(43) See. Christophe Dolbeau, Les Parias. Fascistes, pseudo–fascistes et mal–pensants (The Pariahs. Fascists, pseudo–fascists and dissenters), Akribeia, Saint–Genis–Laval, 2021, pp. 169–199; Rémi Tremblay, « Oswald Mosley et l’Union fasciste britannique » (Oswald Mosley and the British Fascist Union), in Cahier d’histoire du nationalisme, n° 14, Synthèse nationale, Paris, 2018.

(44) A Canadian suffragette, ex–communist and laborer, Mary Richardson made herself known in 1914 by damaging Velasquez’s famous painting The Toilet of Venus with a chopper.

(45) Cynthia Curzon Mosley (1898–1933) and Diana Mitford Mosley (1910–2003).

(46) Women and Fascism: Ten Points of Fascist Policy for Women, BUF Publications, London, 1936 (republished by Steven Books, London, 2002).

(47) See. Norah Elam, “Fascism, Women and Democracy,” in Fascist Voices. Essays from the Fascist Quarterly 1936–1940, vol. 1 (Sanctuary Press, 2019), 30, 35.

(48) See. Alfred William Brian Simpson, In the Highest Degree Odious. Detention Without Trial in Wartime Britain (Oxford Clarendon, 1993).

(49) See. Christophe Dolbeau, Les Parias. Fascistes, pseudo–fascistes et mal–pensants (The Pariahs. Fascists, pseudo–fascists and dissenters) (Akribeia, Saint–Genis–Laval, 2021). 81–105.

(50) Maria Odile Maréchal was sentenced to death in absentia by the “Purge Courts.” Having gone into hiding and then exiled in Switzerland, she did not return to Belgium until 1954, after general amnesty.

(51) See: Christophe Dolbeau, “Weimar 1941–1942 : la Société européenne des écrivains” (Weimar 1941–1942: the European Society of Writers), in Tabou, no. 25 (2019): 160–183.

(52) The DeVlag or Duits–Vlaamse Arbeidgemeenschap (German–Flemish Work Community) was a Flemish movement favorable to the integration of Flanders into the Reich. Led by Jef van de Wiele (1903–1979), it had around 50,000 supporters.

(53) Magda Haegens was the wife of Hilaire Gravez, a renowned doctor and Obersturmführer of the SS Langemarck division (released from prison in 1950, Dr. Gravez became the chair of the association of Flemish SS veterans and the Sint–Maartensfond; he also took part in numerous international medical congresses).

(54) Sentenced to death during the Purge but pardoned, Jetje Claessens emigrated in 1951 to Argentina where she died in Mar del Plata.

(55) See. Jean–Michel Étienne, Le mouvement rexiste jusqu’en 1940 (The rexist movement until 1940) (Armand Colin, 1968), 77.

(56) Note that another sister of Léon Degrelle, Madeleine Cornet, clandestinely sheltered three Israelites in her flat during the occupation of Belgium, which earned her (posthumously) the diploma of Righteous Among the Nations. See. Christian Laporte,”La sœur et le beau–frère de Degrelle, Justes des Nations” (The sister and brother–in–law of Degrelle, Righteous Among the Nations). https://yadvashem–france.org/la–vie–du–comite/actualites/la–soeur–et–le–beau–frere–de–degrelle–justes–des–nations/

(57) Renée Demeter was sentenced to 20 years of detention after the war, Huguette Defroiche to 5 years, and Marguerite Inghels to 3 years. As for Suzanne Lagneaux, she went into exile in Switzerland and then in Spain.

(58) See. Christophe Dolbeau, Les Parias. Fascistes, pseudo–fascistes et mal–pensants (The Pariahs. Fascists, pseudo–fascists and dissenters) (Akribeia, Saint–Genis–Laval, 2021): 201–223.

(59) See. Florentine Rost van Tonningen, “Pour la Hollande et pour l’Europe: la vie et la mort du Dr M. M. Rost van Tonningen” (For Holland and Europe: The life and death of Dr M. M. Rost van Tonningen), in Tabou no.16 (2009): 75–90.

(60) Florentine Rost van Tonningen never renounced her national socialist beliefs—see. on this subject her article “Hitler y Hollanda” in CEDADE no. 165 (April 20, 1989): 28–30.

(61) That is to say, 24,000 prisoners if we are to believe P. Sérant (op. cit., 338) and Franz W. Seidler, Die Kollaboration 1939–1945 (Herbig, 1999), 30.

(62) See. Christophe Dolbeau, Les Parias. Fascistes, pseudo–fascistes et mal–pensants (The Pariahs. fascists, pseudo–fascists and dissenters) (Akribeia, Saint–Genis–Laval, 2021): 291–311.

(63) NS Kvinnehird  was successively headed by Halldis Neegaard Østbye (1896–1983), Liv Anker Tomter (1911–1988), Johanne Martin (1909–1994) and Randi Roberg (1913–1995).

(64) During the Purge, political activists were paradoxically treated less badly than women (around 50,000) accused of “horizontal collaboration” (having sex with German soldiers). The latter were, in fact, often chased out of the country and deprived of their children (10,000 to 12,000) who were placed in orphanages or psychiatric hospitals. Cf. Jason Daley, “Norway Apologizes for Persecuting World War II ‘German Girls.’” https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart–news/norway–apologizes–persecuting–wwii–german–girls–180970592/

---

Further reading

– Lamya Ben Djaffar, “Les femmes et l’Ordre nouveau en Belgique francophone, 1936–1945,” in Cahiers d’Histoire du Temps Présent (CHTP–BEG), no. 4 (1998).

– Martina Bitunjac, Le donne e il movimento ustascia (Nuova Cultura, 2013).

– Didier Chauvet, La Ligue des filles allemandes: les jeunes filles allemandes sous le nazisme (L’Harmattan, 2023).

– Jean–Michel Étienne, Le mouvement rexiste jusqu’en 1940 (Armand Colin, 1968).

– Martin Pugh, “Hurrah for the Blackshirts”: Fascists and Fascism in Britain Between the Wars (Pimlico, 2006).

– Richard Thurlow, Fascism in Britain. A History, 1918–1985 (Oxford, Blackwell, 1987).

 

Christophe Dolbeau is a former professor and historian. This article was first published in the French magazine Tabou (31, Editions Akribeia, 2024) —the original title of the essay in French is “Les femmes et l’Ordre Nouveau” (“Women in the New Order”). The translation into English for TOO was done by the author himself. The editing and some slight adaption of the text below was done by Tom Sunic.

For over a hundred years — since Benito Mussolini came to power in October 1922 — the holy alliance of socialists, communists, liberals, masons and progressives of all stripes has been endlessly repeating that nationalism, fascism and national-socialism were backward-looking, regressive regimes that severely oppressed the European population and particularly the fairer sex. If we were to take these post-World War II stories at face value, ii follows that these regimes were particularly resistant to the emancipation of women and women’s self-fulfillment, treating them as objects of significant oppression and derision. Accordingly, the depicted regimes were portrayed as polities attached to the traditional family and patriarchal values, fiercely hostile to abortion, unfavorable to women’s paid work, and opposed to their social or political advancement. The new Fascist Order, as the modern narrative goes, aimed at establishing a caricatured incarnation of the most regressive and misogynist Reaction.

Such a simplistic refrain coming from the Left (and the fake Right) is invariably accompanied by toxic denunciation of women who supported or condoned those hated regimes, and who, accordingly, are portrayed today as stupid or outright villainous creatures. All things considered, it must be pointed out that these allegations border more on propaganda than on honest and objective historical observations. Certainly, the constituent regimes and their partners, i.e., European collaborators of the New Order, were not free of defects. They also had little in common with the feminist or LGBT ideologies of the 21^st century. However, if we take into account the context and the mores of that time, there is no reason to suggest that those regimes had to be ashamed of the way in which they viewed and treated women. In order to better seize the spirit of this tragic European epoch, let us take a brief look at the status of women in several European countries during that troubled time.

Italy

Generale Piera Fondelli Gatteschi in 1944 (1902–1985)

With all due respect, let us begin with Italy, the first country to opt for radical change and that took a new path by embracing fascism. From the beginning of this upheaval, as seen at the famous Piazza San Sepolcro rally (March 23, 1919), women were present in the movement, as evidenced by the attendance of nine of them (1) at that famous gathering. The program adopted during that meeting called for the women’s right to vote and eligibility for all women. Shortly after, the first female fasci (fasci femminili) started springing up in the open: in 1920, Elisa Majer Rizzioli (1880–1930) (2) founded a fascio in Milan, while Elisa Savoia founded another in Monza. Other militants coming into the limelight included Olga Mezzomo Zannini in Padua, Marchioness Corinna Ginori-Lisci in Florence, and professor Laura Marani Argnani in Reggio Emilia. The initial struggle was harsh and sometimes even bloody. This did not prevent a few determined women from taking part in the struggle. Those deserving special mention include the nurse Luisa Zeni (1879–1964), Marchioness Margherita Incisa di Camerana (1879–1964), as well as Maria Bianchi and novelist Maria Vitali, who were both present alongside the poet Gabriele d’Annunzio in Fiume in September 1919 (now the city of Rijeka in Croatia) (3). Other women directly joined the ranks of the squadristi, like Cesarina Bresciani (Verona), Claudia Sironi and the journalist Fanny Dini. Ines Donati (1900–1924) would earn the honorary appellations of “La Capitana” (The Captainess) and even the Joan of Arc of fascism (4) for her role in fighting in the blue shirts of the Sempre pronti (5).

As soon as he took office, the Duce undertook profound nationwide reforms and immediately adopted various measures aimed at improving the wellbeing of women. It is with this aim in particular that the Work for the Protection of Motherhood and Childhood (Opera nazionale maternità e infanzia — ONMI) was born in 1925; its major concern being food-related and hygienic measures, while also initiating the opening of thousands of canteens and dispensaries under the name Casa della Madre e del Bambino (6). The same year, the right to vote in local elections was granted to Italian women. Little girls and adolescents were cared for by the Opera Nazionale Balilla (ONB), and from 1937, by the Gioventù Italiana del Littorio. These national organizations divided their members according to their age; i.e., into Figlie della lupa (Daughters of the She-Wolf, for 6 to 8-year-olds), Piccole italiane (Little Italian girls, 8 to 14 years old), Giovanni italiane (Young Italian girls, 14 to 18 years old) and Giovanni fasciste (Young fascists, 18 to 21 years old). Older girls were assigned lessons in childcare, domestic finances and first aid. In 1939, there were more than 2.5 million girls and women in the youth movement (7). In April 1934, the Italian state also enacted a law on the employment of women and children, while prohibiting work at night and limiting the hours of daily work. Under the aegis of the women’s groups, the National Fascist Federation of Rural Housewives and the Section of Domestic Workers (SOLD) were also created. By 1943, the first of these two groups had more than 2.5 million members. These initiatives were of course attributable to experienced militants like the Sansepolcrista lady Regina Terruzzi (1862–1951) and the academic (mathematician) Annita Cemezzi Moretti.

At first professor, Angiola Moretti, a veteran of the Fiume affair, was in charge of the women’s groups, then, shortly after, a board of directors was estabhed and supervised by seven inspectors (8). It goes without saying that far from being marginalized or looked down upon, all of these women held a high rank in the party hierarchy. This was the case with Olga Modigliani, née Flaschel (9), who was a member of a ministerial cabinet. Even higher up in the hierarchy was Margherita Sarfatti (1880–1961), who directly advised the head of the government (she wrote a flattering biography of Mussolini, entitled Dux). Sarfatti was a journalist and art critic of Jewish origin who was close to Mussolini and worked as the editor of Gerarchia, an academic journal on fascist theory. This woman of letters would play a leading role in the fields of art (10) and political decision-making up until 1934. Moreover, and contrary to the modern legend, the regime did not seem particularly sexist or hostile to female intellectuals; several poets and novelists could express themselves freely and benefit from large republishing efforts. These include Ada Negri (Mussolini Prize in 1931 and first woman to enter the Italian Academy in 1940), Amalia Liana Negretti Odescalchi (aka Liala), a friend of D’Annunzio, Fortunata Morpurgo (aka Willy Dias), Flavia Steno, Amalia Guglielminetti, Grazia Deledda (Nobel Prize for Literature 1926) and Maria Assunta Volpi Nannipieri (aka Mura). In addition, many cultured women were to be found within the National Fascist Association of Women Artists and Graduates (ANFA) (11) or the Italian Cultural Women’s Alliance (Alleanza muliebre culturale italiana). As for the fascist women’s magazines (Rassegna femminile italiana ; La donna fascista ; La piccola italiana ; Vita femminile ; Giornale della donna ; Il Tricolore ; Gioventù fascista ; Giovinezza), all of them were run by a multitude of women columnists and journalists. Although the authorities officially favored the role of the housewife whose maternal mission was highly praised, it is no less true that Italian women asserted themselves and came to prominence in many other fields. One must mention the painter Benedetta Cappa (1897–1977), wife of the poet and writer Tomaso Marinetti, as well as the sculptors Lina Arpesini (1888–1974) and Lea d’Avanzo (1898–1975), with many of them being involved with important artistic exhibitions (12). For her part, the lady athlete Ondina Valla (1916–2006) became famous by bestowing Italy with its first women’s gold medal at the Berlin Olympic Games (August 1936).

Women could be even be found in uniform, especially towards the end of the war, during the time of the short–lived Italian Social Republic (RSI). At that time, nearly 6,000 young citizens joined the Women’s Volunteer Corps for the Auxiliary Services of the Republican Armed Forces (Corpo Femminile Volontario per i Servizi Ausiliari delle Forze Armate Repubblicane). More commonly called the Women’s Auxiliary Service (Servizio Ausiliario Femminile or SAF), this unit was commanded by Piera Gatteschi Fondelli (1902–1985), a former participant in the March on Rome, 1922, who held the rank of brigadier general. There were also nurses or « sorelline » of the Republican Red Cross, as well as recruits of the Republican National Guard, i.e. five detachments including three from the Opera Nazionale Balilla. In addition, some women fought in the Black Brigades (Brigate Nere); 300 others in the ranks of the Decima Mas (13) under the orders of Fede Arnaud Pocek (1920–1997) (14), and a few dozen more served in the Legione Volontari Italiani of the Waffen–SS under the orders of the Marchioness and tennis champion Wally Sandonnino (1910–1987). These women showed impeccable courage to the end of the war and without anyone or anything forcing them, as evidenced by high distinctions awarded to thirteen of them by the RSI, often posthumously (15). The fascist anticommunist resistance also had several fearless women, like Princess Maria Elia De Seta Pignatelli (1894-1968) who provided intelligence for the RSI on the movements of the oncoming Allied forces in southern Italy. When arrested by the British in 1944 and sentenced to twelve years in prison and interned in Riccione, she however managed to escape. She hid at Bishop Silverio Mattei’s location and soon launched the country’s first neo-fascist movement, the Italian Women’s Movement (Movimento italiano femminile — MIF).

To close the Italian chapter, let’s add that the post-war anti-fascist purges did not spare these women from antifascist revenge. “The great purge does not spare women,” wrote Paul Sérant (16). “In the region of Rome, approximately 7,000 women were massacred, another 5,000 thrown into prison and 20,000 were raped with their heads shaved.” Moreover, in Turin in 1945 around 400 women were drowned in the Po river. As for the military auxiliaries, several hundred of them were victims of assassinations, violence, rapes and reprisals against their families…

Germany

Hanna Reitsch (1912–1979)

In Germany in 1933 the majority of voters were women. They chose the path to the New Order by bringing Adolf Hitler and the National-Socialist Party (NSDAP) to power. The authoritarian and even totalitarian new Third Reich, contrary to what is often said, was not hostile to women. Rather, it recognized and celebrated women’s fundamental role in the preservation of the race. Similar to Italian fascism, the new regime put in place countless structures designed to ensure the health and well-being of mothers and children. Special benefits were distributed; Mother’s Day was institutionalized on August 12; while a medal was put in place in order to honor the mothers of more than four children, known as the German Mother’s Cross of Honor (Ehrenkreuz der Deutschen Mutter).

In fact, national-socialism benefitted from the active support of many women as soon as it appeared on the political scene. Among the most influential women let us mention Princess Elsa Bruckmann (1865–1946), who was of Romanian origin, Hélène Bechstein (1876–1951), Gertrud von Seidlitz, Baroness Elisabeth Hermine “Lily” von Abegg (1910–1974), Viktoria von Dirksen (1874–1946), Käthe Bierbaumer (1884–1943), Baroness Sigrid von Laffert (1916–2002) and Mathilde Ludendorff (1877–1966), the wife of General Ludendorff. Their contribution, particularly the financial one, was not negligible. Without directly joining the NSDAP, other women, often from nationalist circles, also contributed to the growth of the National-Socialist Party. Elsbeth Zander (1888–1963), for example, established rest facilities for SA members and launched a newspaper (Opferdienst der Deutschen Frau) which was favorable to the Hitler movement. For her part, the educator Guida Diehl (1868–1961) founded an association (200,000 members) favorable to national-socialism. Among rank-and-file militants one must single out the novelist Marie Diers (1867–1949) and former deputies Margarete Behm (1860–1929) and Clara Mende (1869–1947), the teacher and feminist Käthe Schirmacher (1865–1930), Elisabeth Spohr and the educator Martha Voss Zietz. Long before coming to power, the party itself and its subsidiary groups had several thousand female members. The most intriguing among them was Eleonore Baur, aka “Sister Pia” (1885–1981), an long-time member of the NSDAP. As a former nurse in the Oberland Free Corps, she had taken part in the November putsch of 1923 and was decorated with the Blood Order (Blutorden). In 1931, the National-Socialist Women’s League or NS-Frauenschaft (NSF) came to birth, boasting 109,000 members by 1932, and whose number would grow to ten million members by 1939. First chaired by Lydia Gottschweski (1931–1934), the League was subsequently managed by Gertrud Scholtz-Klink (1902–1999), who would remain its chairwoman until 1945. Far from holding a subordinate position, this Reichsfrauenführerin was one of the highest dignitaries of the regime. Other female institutions of the Reich were the Deutsches Frauenwerk (DFN) i.e., German Women’s Work, which was founded in 1933 by Rudolf Hess, and the Bund Deutscher Mädel (BDM) or the League of German Girls. The first of these groups, which would have up to 1.7 million affiliates, was focused on training mothers (in pediatrics, home finances, etc.). The second group (4.5 million members in 1938) was committed to the education and harmonious development of young female citizens of the Reich. It was directed first by the former postmistress Trude Mohr (1902–1989) and then by Dr Jutta Rüdiger (1910–2001), who was a psychologist by profession. Of course, both the adult and youth movements had their own press outlets, namely the NS-Frauen-Warte (1.9 million copies in 1939) for the NSF, and Das Deutsche Mädel for the BDM. There were also other important publications designed for women, such as the Deutsche Frauen-Zeitung, Die Junge Dame and Die Frau.

Gertrud Scholtz-Klink (1902–1999)

German women were in no way marginalized as shown by their being closely associated with the life of the country. In 1933, 36 percent of them were employed and by 1944 their number reached 53 percent. In 1936, more than 1.5 million women were working in the industrial sector. Many were active in the ranks of the National-Socialist Business Cell Organization or Nationalsozialistische Betriebszellenorganization (NSBO), and later in the Labor Front (Deutsche Arbeitsfront — DAF). After leaving the BDM, the youngest women could join the BDM Werk Glaube und Schönheit (BDM — Society for Faith and Beauty) which served as a link to the Women’s League (NSF). All of them were required, just like young males, to perform labor service (Frauenarbeitsdienst), with young girls also participating from 1941 onwards in the Service for the War Effort (Kriegshilfsdienst — KHD). The most skillful among them were selected to attend the BDM executive schools and even the Napola, a sort of boarding school of excellence which trained the future executives for the nation (17). The state did not fail to honor some remarkable women. The most famous was undoubtedly Magda Goebbels (1901–1945) who played the role of the first lady of the Reich. Let us also mention the filmmaker Leni Riefenstahl (1902–2003) (18), the architect Gerdy Troost (1904–2003) (19), the sopranos Elisabeth Schwarzkopf (1915–2006) and Margarete Slezak (1901–1956), the short story writers and poets Agnes Miegel (1879–1964) and Ina Seidel (1885–1974), as well as the concert pianist Elly Ney (1882–1968). Margarete Gussow was entrusted with the flattering position of academic chair of astronomy while other women received laudatory distinctions such as becoming recipients of the prestigious Goethe medal for art and science (20). Several actresses and artists enjoyed the favors of those in power who in turn ensured their promotion nationwide; this was the case, for example, with the singers Lale Andersen (1905–1972) and Zarah Leander (1907–1981), as well as the movie stars, Marika Rökk (1913–2004), Brigitte Horney (1911–1988), Paula Wessely (1907–2000), Kristina Söderbaum (1912–2001) and Czech–born Lida Baarová (1914–2000).

Being present in all sectors of the country’s activity, the women of the Reich were also active in the army where their contribution was crucial throughout the Second World War. With a workforce estimated at nearly 500,000 volunteers, these Wehrmachthelferinnen or “Wehmracht helpers” (the French called them “gray mice” (because of their gray uniform) were to be mainly found in health service, offices, radio transmission service and logistical units, but also in the anti-aircraft defense (Reichsluftschutzbund and Flakbehelfspersonal). Among these female soldiers some stand out in particular. The best known of all was undoubtedly the aviatrix Hanna Reitsch (1912–1979), a test pilot and Flugkapitän of the Luftwaffe. Having tested the first helicopter and the first jet aircraft, Reitsch was decorated with the 1st class Iron Cross and with the pilot-observer badge in gold with diamonds. Other heroines of this era included the aviatrix Melitta Schenk von Stauffenberg (1903–1945) (21), also a test pilot and Flugkapitän, who would receive the 2nd class Iron Cross as well as the pilot-observer badge in gold with diamonds. She was shot down by an Allied fighter jet on April 8, 1945. Among the nurses, several women distinguished themselves with exceptional courage and dedication; we can only mention here Else Großmann, awarded the Iron Cross 1st class, and Elfriede Wnuk (1916–1999), Iron Cross 2nd class and silver badge of the wounded (after having had one of her legs amputated). But there were dozens and dozens of other women. Besides, even if we leave aside harmful consequences of the war itself, it would be wrong to say that German women of that period were subject to any form of male harassment in the New Order regime. It is certainly commendable to reject National Socialism and even condemn its objectives and methods, but it is totally unfounded to view it as a system oppressing and mistreating women. In general (22), most women behaved rather honorably and even showed great bravery, self-sacrifice and great resilience. Despite all the losses suffered at the end of the conflict (including hundreds of thousands of rapes committed by the victors), it was the German women who rebuilt the country following World War II.

Notes:

(*) In order to avoid any unfortunate misunderstanding, let us make it clear that in this text we evoke the general attitude of the supporters of the New Order toward women. We are fully aware that the regimes, parties and movements described here often pursued an extremely repressive and even murderous policy against certain women (Israelites, Gypsies, communists, resistance fighters). The reason that we are not addressing this issue lies in the fact that it does not fall within the scope of this study. In fact, these women were not persecuted because they were women, but because they were Israelites, Gypsies, communists or resistance fighters — which in our opinion relates to an entirely different aspect of the New Order.

Go to Part 2.

———————————————

(1) Namely Giselda Brebbia; Luisa Rosalia Dentici; Maria Bianchi, widow Nascimbeni; Fernanda Ghelfi Peyrani; Paolina Piolti De Bianchi; Cornelia Mastrangelo Stefanini; Ines Norsa Tedeschi; Regina Terruzzi; and Gina Tinozzi.

(2) Elisa Majer Rizzioli had been a nurse in Libya, under the orders of the Duchess of Aosta, and then during the Great War.

(3) “Some,” writes Denise Detragiache, “are part of the armed female groups who entered the city with the legionnaires and wear the black shirt of the arditi and the “Roman” dagger. The Sansepolcrist Maria Nascimbeni, “volunteer sergeant of the Black Flames”  is one of them.”  Cf.  “Le fascisme féminin, 1919–1925” (Female fascism, 1919–1925), in Revue d’histoire moderne et contemporaine 30, no. 3 (1983): 366–400, 372.

(4) On February 18, 1921, she publicly slapped the socialist deputy Alceste Della Seta.

(5) The Sempre Pronti per la Patria e per il Re was a paramilitary group created in 1919 by the Italian Nationalist Association. In 1923, it joined the Voluntary Militia for National Security (MVSN).

(6) See. M. Missiroli, Ce que l’Italie doit à Mussolini (What Italy owes to Mussolini), Editions de Novissima, Roma, 1942, p. 105.

(7) Ibid, p. 182.

(8) Namely Angiola Moretti (a teacher and a veteran of Fiume), Clara Franceschini, Giuditta Stelluti Scala Frescara (a nurse and a pediatrician), Wanda Bruschi Gorjux (a journalist), Laura Marani Argnani, Teresita Menzinger Ruata and the Marchioness Olga Medici del Vascello.

(9) A former feminist of Jewish origin.

(10) She was at the origin of the so-called Novecento movement and France named her a member of the international jury at the Decorative Arts Exhibition in October 1925.

(11) For example, Adelina Pertici Pontecorvo (1888–1981), first female notary in Italy, or the mathematician and statistician Maria Castellani (1896).

(12) In 1941, the Almanacco della Donna lists 693 professional artists present in official events.

(13) Combat swimmers’ unit of the Royal Italian Navy, then special detachment of the RSI Navy commanded by Prince Junio Valerio Borghese (1906–1974). In 1943–1945, the Press and Propaganda Office of this elite unit was headed by a woman, Pasca Piredda (1916–2009).

(14) After the war, she will become a screenwriter and dubbing director for cinema and television.

(15) These women include Franca Barbier, Maria Garzena and Angelina Milazzo who received posthumously the gold medal for military valor, Silvia Polettini, who received, again posthumously, the silver medal for military valor, and Marietta Togna who received the bronze medal.

(16) See. Paul Sérant, Les vaincus de la Libération (The Vanquished of the Liberation), Robert Laffont, Paris, 1964, pp. 282 and 285.

(17) Designated under the name of Nationalpolitischen Erziehunganstalten (NPEA) or Nationalpolitischen LehrAnstalten — Napola, there are 33 schools in 1942, including 3 reserved for girls. A list of some male alumni of these establishments can be found on: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalpolitische_Erziehungsanstalt..

(18) Director of the movies Sieg des Glaubens (1933), Triumph des Willens (1934) and Olympia (1936) among others.

(19) Gerdy Troost was entrusted with prestigious projects, such as Haus der Kunst, Königsplatz and Ehrentempel.

(20) Namely the Wagnerian soprano Anna Bahr-Mildenburg (1872–1947), the Austrian actress Hedwig Bleibtreu (1868–1958), the gynecologist Agnes Bluhm (1862–1943), already holder of the silver Leibnitz medal, the poet Isolde Kurz (1853–1944), and the poet Lulu von Strauss und Torney (1873–1956).

(21) She was the sister-in-law of Claus von Stauffenberg (1907–1944), main perpetrator of the July 20, 1944 assassination attempt on Adolf Hitler.

(22) It goes without saying that our assessment does not apply to the camp guards. Besides, 3,600 of these female guards are absolutely not representative of German women — the Reich in fact had 41.7 million women in 1939, and as for the members of the National Socialist Women’s League (NSF), there were 10 million at the same time. At most, we can consider these Aufseherinnen (guards) as symptomatic of the appalling level of prison staff (they were often recruited through classified ads) and of the criminal excesses in the Nazi concentration camp apparatus.

Concluding one of America’s more infamous obscenity trials in 1964, Justice Potter Stewart absolved a controversial French motion picture with an opinion that has since passed into common parlance: “I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.” The opinion was celebrated at the time as a victory for freedom of expression, and paved the way for a later deluge of Western cultural degradation. Of greater significance, however, is the fact that almost 60 years later “I know it when I see it” has become a political philosophy in its own right, adopted and pursued by a radical Left intent on curtailing that very same freedom by claiming an exclusive and unaccountable ability to define Fascism. This was the starkest message from The Burkean’s unprecedented recent Irish Antifa Project, which was designed to infiltrate and expose self-styled Antifa networks in mainstream Irish academia and politics.

In my view, the most predictable revelation from the Irish Antifa Project was the extent of historical and cultural ignorance among the profiled activists. None of the intellectually and professionally mediocre individuals exposed by The Burkean appeared capable of articulating what Fascism was, or is alleged to be today. Fascism instead seems to have been adopted by these non-entities as a vague catch-all for anything touching upon capitalism, conservatism, religion, or tradition. Equally vague are the proposed activist methodologies of these individuals, which range from the compiling of databases with the names of those deemed to be Fascists, to tentative but deniable support for violence. With the exception of a small number of fanatical Jews like Trinity College student Jacob Woolf, “anti-Fascism” has evidently been adopted by the majority of those concerned as a kind of half-hearted virtue signaling hobby or political side gig, albeit one with sinister potential.

Unfortunately, the problems posed by an uninformed, unaccountable, and unhinged “anti-Fascist” radical Left aren’t helped by the fact confusion about the nature of Fascism is endemic in society as a whole. There are essentially three traditions when it comes to explaining Fascism. One can be found within Fascism itself, and demonstrates how self-defined Fascists see themselves. This material is overwhelmingly historical. Another tradition can be found in contemporary mainstream academia and, although biased, it is at least academic in style, serious, and relatively comprehensive. The work of the late Roger Griffin is perhaps the best available in the English language in terms of this tradition, and is also largely concerned with history. The third tradition, on the other hand, is popular, highly politicised, always concerned with contemporary politics, and is abridged to the point of being a pop-Left caricature of serious studies of Fascism. It is particularly problematic because it has tremendous traction among the masses and, despite being propaganda for extremist politics of its own sort, always presents itself as objective and neutral.

The individuals profiled by The Burkean are unquestionably disciples of the latter tradition, a recent example of which is Jason Stanley’s How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them (2018). Stanley, a Jewish professor at Yale whose background is in language and epistemology and not history or politics, hasn’t published any peer-reviewed material on Fascism or anti-Fascism, but his 2018 book proved a moderate publishing sensation because it represented a thinly veiled attack on the Trump administration. The same administration provoked similar ill-conceived and unhelpful monographs on Fascism from Cass Sunstein (Can it Happen Here?), Madeleine Albright (Fascism: A Warning), and Harvard duo Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt (How Democracies Die). All of these individuals are Jews, and this is not a coincidence. In fact, since the production of Leon Trotsky’s Fascism: What it is and How to Fight It (compiled between 1922 and 1933) and the Frankfurt School’s project on the “Authoritarian Personality,” Jews have been at the forefront of paving the cultural, as well as political, path to Antifa activity. They do so by bastardising public understanding of the nature of Fascist politics, thereby shaping “anti-Fascism” as a vehicle for the undermining of the White nation. When it comes to Fascism, “Jews know it when they see it,” a pronouncement we are all encouraged to accept without question.

Jewish Definitions of Fascism

A common theme in influential books like Stanley’s, destined for a modicum of success in the paperback mass market thanks to dramatic titles and relentless marketing, is their incredibly—and deliberately—vague definition of Fascism. These Jewish activists know this, of course, but they push ahead regardless. Stanley, for example, excuses the gaps and logical leaps inherent in his dubious study by arguing that “generalization is necessary in the current moment.” But if he is defining the “current moment” as Fascist under his generalized definition, isn’t he simply using generalization to excuse the same generalization? Isn’t this tantamount to saying to his readers: “The present moment is so obviously Fascist that we really don’t need to define Fascism”? Such considerations don’t slow Stanley down for a second, and this celebrated Yale professor slips off the hook to pronounce, even more unhelpfully, “I have chosen the label “Fascism” for ultranationalism of some variety.” What variety? What’s his definition of “ultranationalism”? It doesn’t matter. What is clear in texts like Stanley’s is that you aren’t here to be encouraged to think or ask questions, but to absorb a discourse and accept a dogma. The authority behind such demands stems predominantly from emotional blackmail — Stanley cashes in his card as the son of “Holocaust survivors,” and explains that “My family background has saddled me with difficult emotional baggage. But it also, crucially, prepared me to write this book.” His lack of education and reading in the subject is therefore apparently more than compensated for in the fact he is emotionally distressed by it. Right.

Jason Stanley: Bravely struggling with his emotional baggage

Not only are Jewish definitions of Fascism deliberately inadequate and disingenuous, they’re often completely wrongheaded. Stanley in his first chapter “The Mythic Past,” for example, describes Fascist propaganda as relying on a unique blend of mythic, romanticised, and normally rural evocations of the past, and that the same propaganda offers a future return to this idyll. It goes without saying that this provides an extremely convenient way for Jewish and Leftist activists to attack almost all genuine conservatives as Fascists. But is such propaganda even inherently Fascist or even right-wing? We might consider the following quote from a well-known historical figure: “The position of the English agricultural labourer from 1770 to 1780, with regard to his food and dwelling, as well as to his self-respect, amusements etc., is an ideal never attained again since that time.” The ideologue behind this quote proposed a future in which the national community of citizens enjoyed something like a return to this pastoral idyll, filling their days with productive work, music, and leisure (“hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise [literature] in the evening”). It really is quite a vision. But the problem is that these proposals aren’t from the works of Sir Oswald Mosley, but from Karl Marx’s Capital and The German Ideology, and they were a key aspect of the early promotion of Communism. The idea that Fascism uniquely appeals to notions of making one’s country “great again” is an unsophisticated trope and, ultimately, a political weapon.

The truth of the matter is that politicised nostalgia and visions of national rebirth are common to ideologies of all stripes, and are useless as tools for examining the specific nature of genuine political and cultural manifestations of Fascism. The only possible exception is Roger Griffin’s highly nuanced theory of palingenetic ultrationationalism, which is corrupted and glossed in Jewish treatments of the subject in order to indict all expressions of White discontent in modernity. Presentations of ideal pasts and futures are quite obviously utilised by all political actors keen to exploit the public instinct to reject the status quo. Barack Obama’s campaigns based on “Hope,” “Change,” and “Progress,” and Trump’s “MAGA” are not substantially different in style or method, the only significant dissimilarity being the demonising of the latter and the feverish and irrational presentation of its ethos as an early symptom of an impending Fascist takeover. The preoccupation of Cultural Marxist anthropologists with describing putatively utopian modes of life in primitive societies can also clearly be seen as a call to “make society great again” by demolishing capitalism, the family, etc. The oldest and most profound political expression of resurrecting a glorious past rooted in the land is, of course, not even to be found in European Fascism at all, but in the quintessential palingenetic ultranationalism of Zionism, a subject strangely never covered by our Jewish authors, presumably because of other “difficult emotional baggage.”

Similar definitions of Fascism, this time refracted through a lens of Leftist pop-culture garbage, can be found in Cass Sunstein’s 2018 Can It Happen Here? Sunstein’s expertise is ostensibly law, though his most successful work is apparently The World According to Star Wars (2016). In another time and context, someone like Sunstein would cut a ridiculous figure, in much the same way that the Romans found it hilarious that the people squatting in the hovel that was 1st century Judea regarded themselves as a superior nation. Sunstein has shaped his career as a professor at the University of Chicago Law School around such efforts as inaugurating a “celebrate tax day” and ending all government recognition of marriage. But Star Wars books and outlandish schemes aside, Sunstein is a deeply sinister individual. He is particularly concerned by “conspiracy theories,” and has developed policy suggestions that governments engage in the “cognitive infiltration of extremist groups” by entering “chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action.” In other words, Sunstein is a major contributor to the concept of “thought crime” and a high-profile advocate for the same kind of law enforcement online disinformation and entrapment activity that regularly snares exuberant White teenage gamers and presents them to the media as right-wing terrorists.

Cass Sunstein: “We need a cognitive infiltration of extremist groups”

Sunstein edited, and contributed to, Can It Happen Here?, along with a motley of other Jews, including Eric Posner, Jack Balkin, Tyler Cowen, Jack Goldsmith, Tom Ginsburg, Noah Feldman, Jonathan Haidt, Bruce Ackerman, Jon Elster, Martha Minow, David Strauss, and Geoffrey R. Stone. In fact, of the 17 essays comprising the volume, 13 are written by Jews. One of the non-Jews is Sunstein’s Irish-American wife, the shabbos goy and ADL darling Samantha Power, and two are Muslims. Can It Happen Here?, subtitled Authoritarianism in America, is therefore little more than an exercise in Jewish paranoia and a glaring example of the way in which Jews invoke vague caricatures of Fascism in order to attack the traditional structures of White nations. Posner, for example, cites Trump’s hostility to elements of the press and the fact his initial success occurred somewhat outside the two-party structure of American politics as sufficient evidence of a Fascist threat. In other words, Jews, who dominate the press and have very significant financial interests in the trajectories of both major parties, regard anything not fully within their control as tantamount to Fascism.

The same fearmongering yet vague template is followed by Levitsky and Ziblatt in How Democracies Die (2018), which opens with the authors declaring that authoritarianism has been for them an “occupational obsession.” Levitsky and Ziblatt “feel dread … We worry.” What has them most worried is “intimidation of the press” and the fact some politicians “view their rivals as enemies.”  Trump terrifies due to his “clear authoritarian tendencies.” He is said to follow in an American tradition of “extremist demagogues” that includes “Henry Ford, Huey Long, Joseph McCarthy, and George Wallace.” America “failed the test” when it elected Trump in November 2016.  Like Sunstein and Posner, Levitsky and Ziblatt are especially concerned by “extreme partisan polarization,” which is another way of saying that they are very worried that the two main political parties may actually diverge in a meaningful way from one another and therefore run the risk of engaging in a genuine politics. Since the same complaint is made by Stanley and Sunstein, we might assume that Jews are most comfortable with two-party systems in which the parties and their policies are almost indistinguishable and in which there is a high level of ideological consensus. Anything outside this comfort zone is Fascism.

Levitsky and Ziblatt: “We feel dread … We worry.”

Equally terrified is Madeleine Albright, whose Fascism: A Warning (2018) is derived from an identical playbook to that employed by Stanley, Sunstein, Levitsky, and Ziblatt. Albright opens the 2019 edition of her book with a new preface in which she poses as a benevolent granny, writing with detachment and objectivity, she claims, at her “farm” in Virginia. Granny Albright, who once declared the Serbs to be “disgusting” and opined that starving half a million Iraqi children via UN sanctions was “worth it,” now spends her days tending to her tomatoes and pondering with great bemusement why a reporter recently branded her a “war mongering ghoul.” As she observes the serenity of the evergreens around her, it is quite the mystery why multicultural America seems to be “at each other’s throats.” We might think that Granny Albright could answer such a question by leaving rural Virginia and moving to America’s multicultural heartlands. But no, from her safe and isolated vantage point she has it all figured out. Her answer is simple, and has nothing to do with the fact multiculturalism is itself a poisonous doctrine —  multiculturalism isn’t working because Donald Trump and Fascism are on the verge of a devastating takeover. But what is Fascism? This is never clear anywhere in the book. Albright vaguely explains that Fascism is a “spread of anti-democratic trends.” [Translation: “The controlled two-party system has been weakened”] Fascist “attitudes” develop when “the perception grows that everybody lies.” [Translation: “The goyim know”] Fascism is “a doctrine of anger and fear.” [Translation: “I’m worried. Shut it down.”]

Andrew Rawnsley, Guardian journalist, aware of the this glaring weakness in the book, interviewed Albright prior to writing his review: “I suggest to her that the book struggles to offer a satisfactory definition of fascism. ‘Defining fascism is difficult,’ she responds. ‘First of all, I don’t think fascism is an ideology. I think it is a method, it’s a system’.” In other words, Fascism is a label that can be applied to any kind of politics that unsettles Jews and offers authentic alternative political methodologies. By refusing to acknowledge Fascism as a specific historical political ideology with identifiable and fixed traits, Albright and the other Jewish activists mentioned here can free it up as a system of mere “methods” that can then be interpreted in general terms in order to attack those elements of White society deemed oppositional to Jewish interests. So-called Antifascism, which draws all of its cultural power from this kind of Jewish propaganda, is therefore not against Fascism at all, but against any “methods” or “trends” that aren’t conducive to Jews.

Madeleine Albright: Wrote a book about something she can’t define

Stanley’s book is an excellent guide to Jewish paranoia about the “methods” hinted at by Albright. His text is divided into chapters titled “The Mythic Past,” “Propaganda,” “Anti-Intellectual,” “Unreality,” “Hierarchy,” “Victimhood,” “Law and Order,” “Sexual Anxiety,” “Sodom and Gomorrah,” and, since Jews inevitably view all dissent from their interests as leading ultimately to outlandish forms of mass murder, the final chapter is headed “Arbeit Macht Frei.” Each of these chapters deals with entirely subjective material and ideas, and there is no serious engagement with any scholarly literature on historical Fascism.

As discussed above, “the mythic past” is only a problem for Jews like Stanley when the past in question isn’t conducive to Jewish goals. Fictional multicultural pasts where ancient “Cheddar Man” Britons had dark skin, Africans lived in England before the English, and Whites demonstrated unique evil, are currently the height of intellectual and cultural fashion. These are the versions of “the mythic past” that Jews celebrate and promote. On the other hand, conceptions of the past as involving mono-ethnic cultures, celebrations of European racial glory, and acknowledgement of White group achievement are branded Fascist and beyond the pale. In the Jewish vision, the histories of Europeans are irredeemably shameful and therefore any attempt to make one’s nation “great again” is both irrational (“they were never great in the first place!”) and threatening. In this reading, all positive reflections on the European past are part of the Fascist methodology and should therefore be ruthlessly opposed. When Jews like Stanley and Albright include references to “the mythic past” in their “warnings” about Fascism they are in fact warning and shaming Whites against asserting their own interests and group pride.

The same framework is employed in discussing the alleged propaganda and “anti-intellectual” qualities of Fascism. Stanley argues that Fascists “attack and devalue education, expertise, and language.” This argument is, at best, entirely subjective and at worst complete nonsense. The idea that Fascists have been against intellectualism in general is simply ridiculous. As John Whittam writes in his Fascist Italy:

Fascism suffered not from the lack of ideas but from too many. Despite their rhetoric and pronounced hostility towards the intellectuals of the old liberal establishment, Futurists, syndicalists, ex-socialists, and even the ras professed an ideology and invariably had access to a newspaper where their views could be expressed. After the conquest of power one of the major problems was the formulation of an ideology from the bewildering array of distinctive ideologies within the Fascist movement.^[1] [emphasis added]

Underlying Stanley’s accusatory statement is the simple fact that Fascists oppose liberal, left-wing, and Jewish intellectualism. Jewish activists like Stanley believe, of course, that theirs are the only legitimate and authentic intellectual activities in the public sphere. An attack on their position is therefore seen as an attack on all genuine intellectualism. The accusation that Fascists are anti-intellectual thus speaks of a profound arrogance in the accuser.

Equally revealing are Stanley’s chapters on “Sexual Anxiety” and “Sodom and Gomorrah.” These chapters are more or less an apologetic for Weimar-style sexual degeneracy, and insinuate that all attempts to prevent descent into such an abyss are pathological and Fascist. Some interesting context in this regard can be found back in 2016 when Stanley became embroiled in controversy after a Facebook exchange with fellow Jewish academic Rebecca Kukla, of Georgetown University, was widely disseminated. The pair had been discussing Richard Swinburne, an Orthodox Christian philosopher, and were incensed after Swinburne addressed the Society of Christian Philosophers and lectured on Christian ethics, including the religion’s stance on homosexuality. Swinburne made the argument that homosexuality could be understood as an illness, even a form of disability, since it acted against the otherwise natural imperative to reproduce. Stanley, in a conversation with other Jewish academics, accused Swinburne of “promoting homophobia,” paving the way for another Holocaust, and then finished his tirade with “Fuck those assholes. Seriously.” The charming Dr. Kukla, presumably equally engaged in employing vigorous intellectualism against the Fascist encroachment of Prof. Swinburne, added, “Those douche tankards can suck my giant queer cock.”

Rebecca Kukla: Stunning and brave intellectual fighting against Fascist anti-intellectuals

When the exchange went viral, both Stanley and Kukla scattered like cockroaches under torchlight, hiding under pity narratives and accusations of anti-Semitism. In a remarkable piece worth quoting here at length, Stanley wrote shortly afterwards:

I wanted to address the situation that has arisen from the series of articles in right-wing media outlets about me, and then me and Professor Kukla, that resulted from a private Facebook exchange being published and taken out of context … I was almost always the only Jewish person in my classes growing up. In my high schools in tenth and eleventh grade, I was the first Jewish person to attend. I am very familiar with the isolation that is involved, even when there is no overt discrimination (though I grew up being asked if I had horns and such like, this was ignorance and not malice). It is woven into the tapestry of my existence what it is like to be in a minority faith among a majority … My central concern right now is entirely about our gay colleagues in academia who have been watching this episode in horror, rightly concerned that any complaints about discrimination they may raise, even in private spaces, will result in the kind of incredibly intense retribution that Rebecca Kukla and I have been singled out and subject to over the past week. And those concerns would be legitimate. I need to end with the issue of anti-Semitism. On my public post, someone posted a disturbing comment about Swinburne’s death. I contemplated deleting it but then wanted to wait to see if anyone would ‘like’ it before addressing its horrors (no one did). It is hard to avoid the suspicion that the media discussion starting with the September 28th piece in The American Conservative, and then the Washington Times, is straightforwardly anti-Semitic. How did a non-story about the complexity of communication that results when screenshots from private conversations are made public, become a national story about two leftist Jewish professors and the dangers they pose? At first, the story was solely about me. Then, the other Jewish philosopher who posted on that thread, Rebecca Kukla, was also targeted. What ensued was a terrible anti-Semitic narrative, channeling a virulent 20th century form of anti-Semitism.

When I first read this piece, I have to confess without exaggeration that I laughed so hard I was literally gasping for air. It positively drips with a comic level of Jewish stereotype. Consider the speed with which Stanley morosely explains how he felt as “the only Jew in the class.” Observe the fake worry about the “Other,” in this case his “gay colleagues.” And reflect on the final, truly beautiful, example of the shameless Jewish recourse to the protective embrace of the anti-Semitism accusation — and not just any anti-Semitism but that infamous “virulent” kind. Every ingredient of “crying out as they strike you” is present here in perfect, distilled form. All my differences with him aside, Stanley is to be congratulated on being an excellent student of his people’s craft.

When we therefore read Stanley’s chapters on “Sexual Anxiety” and “Sodom and Gomorrah” we know precisely the kind of attitudes that our esteemed Yale professor brings to the table. He advances a theory that Fascists merely pretend to be upset about the rape of White women in order to reinforce the patriarchy. Take, for example, his outlandish claim that “The crime of rape is basic to fascist politics because it raises sexual anxiety and an attendant need for protection of the nation’s manhood by the fascist authority.” For Stanley, all rhetoric with the purpose of supporting stable, growing White families is Fascist, along with any attempts to challenge the “liberation” of women into sterility, promiscuity, vacuous careerism, grooming gangs, and abortion. But the deeper problem here is that there is no serious literature on any such fixation on rape within Fascism, and Stanley seems to pluck his concept of rape as “basic to fascist politics” from thin air. In reality, antifascist propaganda has been noted many times in the scholarly literature for its reliance on rape metaphors to attack the psychological appeal of Fascism (e.g. “Fascism rapes the mind of the masses”^[2]). We can quite easily surmise that Stanley is probably aware that his argument is nonsense, and that he simply prefers to stigmatise any attempt to protect White women. The same methodology is employed when Stanley proposes that homosexuality and race-mixing are inherently good, being valiant sins “against Fascist ideology.” This is what now passes for an education at Yale.

Conclusion

Stanley, Sunstein, Levitsky, Ziblatt, and Albright have produced quite typical examples of Jewish propaganda disguised as “anti-Fascist” literature. The key features of such works are invariably a vague definition of Fascism, an attempt to relate “warnings” to some aspect of contemporary politics, melodramatic admonitions about a putative future violent catastrophe that must be avoided, and maudlin appeals to personal family history and “emotional baggage.” Underlying the surface veneer, these works are highly focussed efforts to pathologise aspects of White culture and politics deemed oppositional to Jewish interests. These efforts, and their framing, are quite obviously derived from Cultural Marxism, especially Adorno’s work with the Frankfurt School on The Authoritarian Personality, and from earlier forms of Jewish activism witnessed from the end of the 19th century and culminating in Weimar Germany (e.g. the work of Magnus Hirschfeld). The family, the acknowledgement of heterosexuality as culturally and biologically normative and preferential, the desirability of mono-ethnic cultures, and the acknowledgement of inequality among human beings are reframed in this kind of “warning literature” as inherently Fascistic.

It is very worrying that our culture has bequeathed a great deal of respect and legitimacy to Jewish intellectuals, especially in relation to the subject of Fascism. We have allowed them to assert that “they know it when they see it.” The fundamental crisis of our civilization is that they see it everywhere, and they won’t rest until this phantom of their paranoia, and us with it, are abolished.

---

^[1] J. Whittam, Fascist Italy, (New York: Manchester University Press, 1995), 81-2.

^[2] See, for example, S. Chakotin, The Rape of the Masses: The Psychology of Totalitarian Political Propaganda (1940).