Featured Articles

Gangsters and Goodthinkers: Musings on Mafia Malfeasance and the Locked-In Left

Genes for suicide. That seems like a ridiculous notion. But the evolutionary mathematics can work perfectly. In The Selfish Gene (1976), his magisterial introduction to evolutionary theory, Richard Dawkins considers a nest of baby birds that all carry hypothetical suicide-genes. If one of the babies is a runt and going to die anyway, it’s harming its siblings by taking food that would benefit them but that doesn’t, in the end, benefit itself. If the suicide-genes are triggered by struggle and the runt simply gives up and dies, then one copy of the genes is lost but more copies will survive in the siblings. Without the extra food, some of them might have died too or reproduced less well as adults. If more suicide-genes survive on average than are lost, then that ridiculous notion turns out to be disturbingly sensible. You can have genes for suicide.

Killed by cancellation

And what about worker-bees that die as they sting in defence of the queen-bee? It’s only the queen that reproduces, not the workers, so no suicide-genes are lost at all when a worker sacrifices herself for the good of the hive. Now, these suicide-genes will obviously be active in the brain. In the brains of birds and bees, that is. But what about human brains? Could we have suicide-genes too? In a general sense, we must have. Rates of suicide vary widely by race and must be under some genetic influence. Whites commit suicide more often than Blacks, for example, which is interesting when you consider that Whites evolved in a harsher environment than Blacks. When resources are scarcer, suicide can benefit siblings more. Perhaps that’s part of why Whites are more prone to suicide. But triggers for suicide will obviously be different in humans than in birds and bees. A nestling runt doesn’t give up and starve to death out of shame or despair.

But shame and despair certainly explain why a young human jumped off a bridge and drowned himself in January 2024. As widely reported in the mainstream media, he was a 20-year-old White called Alexander Rogers and a popular student at Oxford University. But his popularity disappeared after a sexual encounter went wrong and his female partner began complaining that she’d felt “uncomfortable.” Having been shamed and ostracized by his circle of friends, Rogers saw no way out but suicide. The right-wing side of the mainstream are condemning his death as an egregious example of “cancel culture.” And rightly so. But they aren’t discussing the possible evolutionary aspects of the case or pointing out that cancel culture is egregious in more ways than one. After all, the word egregious literally means “out-of-the-herd” and cancellation entails being ejected from the herd.

Alexander Rogers

The Mafia is for life

Alexander Rogers was ejected from his herd and killed himself as a result. But will a tragedy like that make leftists re-think cancel culture? On the contrary, it may make them think that cancel culture is working just as intended. By killing himself, Alexander Rogers has provided a grim memento mori for possible dissidents and badthinkers: “Stay in line or else.” His transgression was sexual, but cancel culture is mainly designed to police thoughts and opinions. And the goodthinkers who cancelled Alexander Rogers remind me of the gangsters who executed Paulie Gatto.

Two kinds of gangsterism: Das Kapital by Karl Marx and The Godfather by Mario Puzo

Gatto is a character in The Godfather, the book of 1969 and film of 1972 about the Sicilian Mafia in America. He betrays Vito Corleone, the titular Godfather, so he’s shot in the head by another gangster. Before that, Gatto’s immediate boss Peter Clemenza ponders how best to carry out the execution. It has to be done just right, although Clemenza knows that Gatto “was locked in, he could not run away” (chapter 6). That’s what happens to members of the Mafia: they’re enmeshed in the organization, supported by fellow gangsters but also under constant surveillance by them. When Paulie Gatto transgresses, he can’t run away. Nor could Alexander Rogers when he transgressed at Oxford, which is why I think that leftists are also “locked in.” When you’re surrounded by leftists, you’re under constant surveillance and under constant threat of cancellation. I don’t like the sleazy Semitic sex-pest Nick Cohen, a prominent journalist on the British left, but he provided an excellent summary of leftist thought-policing — and self-policing — in one of his books:

Outsiders don’t understand the enfeebling self-consciousness of political debate on the middle-class liberal-left: they can’t imagine the thoughts strangled and tongues bitten to avoid giving the smallest offence to audiences overanxious to find it. The director of a prison reform charity once told me that he struck all metaphors and similes from his speeches. Even if it was a bland cliché of “the government is like a rabbit caught in the headlights” type, he knew half his listeners would stop listening to him for thirty seconds while they double-checked that he had not unintentionally insulted a disadvantaged or ill-favoured group. (What’s Left? How Liberals Lost Their Way, Nick Cohen, Fourth Estate, London, ch. 12, pg. 337)

And that’s just about inadvertent error. What about deliberate badthink? As Kevin MacDonald has described, Whites are unique in the way they form moral communities based on abstract notions of right and wrong, rather than the concrete notions of “What’s best for the Tribe?” that apply among Jews and other races. In the moral community of leftists, you have to be a goodthinker, someone who holds exactly the right opinions and says exactly the right things. Suppose that the Oxford student Alexander Rogers had expressed a liking for Donald Trump or asked whether Muslim immigration had been wholly beneficial for White working-class girls in Rotherham (and lots of other places).

Helping Joe, harming Kamala

If he’d said things like that, he would have been ejected from the herd just as surely as he was for making his sexual partner “uncomfortable.” Leftism is a kind of ideological mafia, “locking in” millions of minds and ensuring that there is no free speech and no free enquiry in leftist bastions like university and government bureaucracy. Leftists also do their best to shame and coerce their non-leftist friends and relatives into compliance with leftism. Would evil, fascist, racist, White Trump have beaten beautiful, intelligence, super-accomplished Black Kamala if the ballot hadn’t been secret? And would Trump have beaten Kamala without the support of X and other internet media? Leftism doesn’t just lock its adherents in: it also tries to lock down dissent. And it did so with great success when it censored the toxic tale of Hunter Biden’s laptop in 2020.

Sleazy Joe might well have lost that election if Elon Musk had owned X back then. But it looks as though all that leftist censorship was for the best. If Trump had begun his second term in 2021, he wouldn’t have followed an agenda as radical as the one he seems about to follow in 2025. After all, he wasn’t promising mass deportations in 2020. He wouldn’t have had Elon Musk as his consigliere either. By helping Biden back then, the left may have hamstrung itself now. If birds and bees have genes for suicide, then leftism has a genius for self-owning. As King Théoden says in Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings: “Oft evil will shall evil mar.”

Whither the West? A Dystopian Perspective

I’ve been angry about the decline of Western “Civilization” for a long time. I am not going to go through the list of injustices, slander, lies, blood libel, theft and gaslighting we have endured as a people in recent decades. You are all familiar with it, we are living through it, and the fact is that every year our collective power, prestige, wealth and social capital is diminishing in a painfully slow creeping process of decline, in every metric. Most of us would accept the axiom that you are either growing or dying. We are most assuredly not growing as a people in any meaningful metric. Maybe our waist lines, but that’s about it.
I have also imagined the ways in which we as a people could reverse this ominous slow-moving cataclysm and reassert ourselves. There is a whole industry of people attempting to sell hopium to Western Man. “Trump has to align himself with Israel otherwise he will never get into office and he won’t be able to make the changes we need” blah blah blah ad infinitum “Trump is playing 5d chess to save America”. Or maybe a military coup? A charismatic White General overthrows the US government and really drains the swamp. Maybe someone important in the real government structure changes their mind and decides to stop the ethnic cleansing of the West. Maybe God or aliens will intervene.

Now I think this desperation was in fact denial. I wasn’t willing to accept the truth, and none of us can move forward unless we accept the truth.
“We must realize that our party’s most powerful weapon is racial tensions. By propounding into the consciousness of the dark races that for centuries they have been oppressed by whites, we can mold them to the program of the Communist Party. In America we will aim for subtle victory. While inflaming the Negro minority against the whites, we will endeavor to instill in the whites a guilt complex for their exploitation of the Negroes. We will aid the Negroes to rise in prominence in every walk of life, in the professions and in the world of sports and entertainment. With this prestige, the Negro will be able to intermarry with the whites and begin a process which will deliver America to our cause.” – Israel Cohen – 1912.

The intellectual framework which has brought the White race to where we are in history, that is to say, on our proverbial knees and hanging by a thread, was framed by our enemies (literally) centuries ago. It was debated by them endlessly decades before you were born, the machinations were made, the tentacles embedded into our institutions and finances, the critique of our social norms and the process of subversion and demoralization tested, refined and retested long before even the parents of the people reading this were born.

What has happened to us is not something anomalous which began in the 1970s. It can’t be pinned on the LGBT movement, feminism or mass immigration. It’s a monstrous, creeping behemoth which has been sneaking up on us, perhaps since antiquity.

So what is the point I am making? Well, essentially, I want to impress upon the reader that something which took centuries to mature and develop, an evil soup which has been simmering in it’s own foul juices for countless decades, refined and seasoned endlessly, something which has in large part shaped and reshaped the mind of Western Man, can not be easily undone. It certainly can not be quickly undone.

No. In fact, that is not the point I am making, this is the point I am making. Western Civilization is dead, and the question for Western Man, is whether Western Man dies with his civilization.

First, I’d stress, this isn’t your fault, and nothing you could have done in your life could have prevented any of it. The battles were fought before you were born, the arguments made, the knives drawn, deals done before you were even a glint in your father’s eyes, the long marches marched and remarched. So don’t beat yourself up about it, and don’t pay any heed to anyone who tells you to “fight”. There is no fight to have, we already lost. This may in fact be the most frustrating aspect of all and the hardest thing to wrap your head around, but if you start fighting, you will just be jailed, lose your job, and probably your family and mental health. You can’t fight because most of your compatriots don’t even believe we are under attack, and will most likely fight to protect the system which is ethnically cleansing them.

Secondly, and this is the part you probably won’t like, is the long grinding trend which has been bleeding out western civilization cannot be reversed.
Indulge me in a thought experiment. Let’s say Donald Trump by some miracle keeps all of his promises, that somehow he can break the entrenched power structures in the United States and accomplish his promises. Let’s imagine, and I’m sure it would feel glorious, that 10 million illegal migrants are rounded up and deported from the US, let’s imagine that government spending is curtailed, there are no more foreign wars, peace in Ukraine, imagine whatever you want. You can have it, all of it.

Would it reverse the demographic decline of the White race in America?

Would it get 5th-column alien elite Marxists out of our academia, every branch of government? Would it get them out of our banks and financial institutions?

Would it stop the owned, demonic, Satanic, pathologically lying corporate media machine from pumping lies into our televisions 24 hours a day, would it take the pesticides out of our food? Or for that matter the refined sugar or seed oil?

Most importantly, would it imprint on our people en masse a sense of the importance of preserving our bloodlines, heritage, traditions, health, self-confidence, virility and our institutions?

Truthfully, we all know it wouldn’t. America used to be a White country, even if by some anomaly, government fiat made America a White country once again, the egalitarian mindset would still be so firmly ingrained on the bulk of our people that we would immediately continue on our inexorable slide into the footnotes of the Jewish history books. The universities would still be pumping out coddled, effeminate morons determined to destroy their bloodline and flagellate themselves on the altar of the latest Jewish “isms”. Corporations would still be importing migrants “legally” to force down wages and dilute our stock, and the media machine would still be painting Western man as the Emmanual Goldstein of the world.

So what’s the answer? Truthfully I don’t know, but I want to start thinking about it. I do know there are still hundreds of millions of us. I know that even though most of that number are mindless morons who can not debase themselves and their bloodline fast enough, that still leaves tens of millions of people who understand that we have enemies and interests which need to be vigorously protected. What I would like is for people in our circle to start planning for what comes next for Western Man in a post-Western world.

De–demonization: Women in the Fascist New Order (Part 3 of 3)

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 SolidaristenVerdinaso) 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 dhistoire 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).

 

De–demonization: Women in the Fascist New Order (Part 2)

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.

Spain

María del Pilar Primo de Rivera y Sáenz de Heredia (1907–1991)

At the beginning of the 1930s some interest in the New Order began to appear in Spain. Tired of negligence, corruption and virulent anticlericalism of the Second Republic, and scandalized by the climate of terror imposed by socialists, communists and anarchists, young Spanish patriots gathered in small nationalist movements which claimed to establish “a great, just, orderly and faithful Spain.” Founded on October 29, 1933 by José Antonio Primo de Rivera y Sáenz de Heredia (1903–1936), the most important of those movements was the Spanish Phalanx of the Councils of National—Syndicalist Offensive (Falange Española de las Juntas de Ofensiva Nacional Sindicalista or FE de las JONS) where some women were also active. In fact, they assembled within the Women’s Section (Sección Femenina or SF), officially launched on July 12, 1934 and headed by María del Pilar Primo de Rivera y Sáenz de Heredia (1907–1991). She was also one of the sisters of the Falangist leader José Antonio Primo de Rivera (23).

Initially few in number (2,500 before July 1936), Falangist women immediately started to play a vital role in the struggle, notably by visiting the movement’s prisoners and ensuring their connections with the outside world. The boldest, like the teacher Rosario Pereda Cornejo (1912–1944), head of the SF of Valladolid and a good speaker, conducted a political campaign during the elections. There were also several young women in the ranks of the SEU, the Spanish University Union (Sindicato Español Universitario), whose female branch was headed by Justina Rodríguez de Viguri (1914–1989). With the start of the civil war in July 1936, the activities of the women’s section of the Falange increased significantly. From then on, the Women’s Section was entrusted with helping the families of the killed as well as providing moral and material assistance to the population behind the front line (distribution of food and clothing, allocation of ration cards, canteens for children, dispensaries, etc.). Their workforce continued to grow, quickly reaching 60,000 members at the end of 1936, and 400,000 in April 1938, and over 900,000 by April 1939. As soon as the uprising broke out and while fierce Red and antifascist repression raged in Madrid, young members and sympathizers of the SF, numbering 6,000, set up a network to help their persecuted members and sympathizers. Called “Blue Rescue” (Auxilio Azul), this clandestine organization (never dismantled) saved the lives of hundreds of nationalist activists. One of its leaders was María Paz Martínez Unciti (1918–1936). Arrested in October 1936, she was shot by the antifascist Republicans in Vallecas (24).

During the first days of the conflict one of the historic leaders of the Falange was the lawyer Onésimo Redondo, who was killed during a clash with Republican militiamen (July 24, 1936). His widow, Mercedes Sanz Bachiller (1911–2007), was also a member of the SF; she continued his fight in her own way by launching the Winter Aid (Auxilio de Invierno) which would soon become the Social Relief (Auxilio Social), an organization providing assistance to the needy and the victims of the war. Thanks to free canteens, daycare centers and medical centers, this organization strove in particular to fight against scurvy, beriberi and anemia which were wreaking havoc due to the nutritional deficiencies that the civilian population suffered. Alongside the Falangists, other young women also devoted themselves to humanitarian aid in the nationalist-held zones of the country. These women were known as the Carlist “Margaritas” (23,000 members in 1936) who were enthusiastically led by the journalist and a skillful speaker María Rosa Urraca Pastor (1900–1984). Those militants, who stood for “God, the Fatherland and the King,” followed the tercios (battalions) of requetés (25), securing field hospitals, with many of them joining in the military combat, including Agustina Simon Sanz. Captured in Belchite in August 1937, she was shot by the Reds.

Following the unification of the national forces decreed by General Franco (April 19, 1937), the Falange took the new name of Traditionalist Spanish Phalanx and Councils of National–Syndicalist Offensive (FET y de las JONS) while incorporating many Spanish monarchists. From that moment the Women’s Section also became the sole women’s organization. “Margaritas” and Social Relief were soon absorbed into a single body of the struggle. Still led by Pilar Primo de Rivera, the organization then took a different turn. The Social Relief witnessed the increase of assistance centers to 711 in October 1937 and to 1,265 in 1938. By the end of the civil war there were nearly 2,500 centers. The humanitarian organization had its own propaganda office, whose leadership was entrusted to the novelist and poet María Carmen de Icaza y de León (1899–1979) (26). She recalled that in her centers, “there are neither reds nor blues, but only children from Spain.” She also coined the famous slogan, “No home without a fireplace and no Spaniard without bread.”

The charitable work of the SF continued well beyond the civil war given that in 1939, the country had become exhausted. At this point, the Falangist organization had many high-quality leaders and benefactors. Chief among them were the novelist Concha Espina (1869–1955) (27), the lawyer (and feminist) Mercedes Fórmica (1913–2002) (28), the engineer Pilar Careaga Basabe (29), Carmen Werner Bolín (1906–2000), who was also a friend of José Antonio, including the poet, journalist and actress Sara Barranco Soro (1910–1947), aka Sarah Demaris. Even in Catalonia, a region known to be less prone to the Falangist discourse, the SF had several outstanding leaders (30).

The Women’s Section also had its own publications (Medina; Y: Revista para la mujer; Teresa. Revista para todas las mujeres; Revista Escuela de Hogar; Consigna). In addition, it gave birth to several ancillary associations with a specific focus, such as the famous folkdance group “Coros y Danzas de España” and the group “Hermandad de la Ciudad y el Campo” which showed  great solidarity with the rural world of Spain.

After the end of the civil war and during the first phase of the new regime, the new state led by Franco provided massive support to the Women’s Section. In 1939 it entrusted it with the management of the Women’s Social Service (Servicio social de la mujer), a counterpart to male military service (31). As a mark of consideration for the enormous wartime contribution of Falangist women, the new authorities allocated them several prestigious buildings to house their centers and offices. Opened on May 29, 1942, the Castillo de la Mota, a castle near Medina del Campo, became the SF executive school, while the Castillo–Palacio de Magalla, near Avila, was transformed into a dormitory.

The civil war in Spain ended on April 1, 1939. However, six months later the Second World War broke out. In this conflict Spain remained neutral without hiding the fact that it was rather favorable to the Axis powers. Faithful to the alliances and friendships established during the civil war, the Falange and its Women’s Section maintained close links with the forces of the New Order, which was best witnessed during the recruitment of an infantry division, the Blue Division (División Azul) that went to fight on the Russian front alongside the Germans. When this unit departed from Madrid in July 1941 it was accompanied by a detachment of 146 nurses commanded by Mercedes Milá Nolla (1895–1990). Furthermore, the German Reich also hired Spanish labor, prompting the Women’s Section to dispatch official representatives to Berlin. A nurse in German Neukölln–Berlin, Celia Giménez Costeira (who passed away in 1991) also spoke on Radio Berlin during broadcasts intended for the soldiers of the Blue Division (who praised her as their  “godmother.” In Spain itself the strategic position of the head of the Press and Propaganda Office of the SF was entrusted to Clara Sofia Stauffer Loewe (1904–1984), a brilliant recruit of the Falange. Being of partial German ancestry, a distinguished polyglot, and a skiing and swimming champion, this young woman was fully committed to Spanish-German friendship. At the end of the Second World War, she provided invaluable assistance to many European fugitives from the defeated New Order (32).

From this brief picture we can summarize the role of some of the outstanding women in the Spanish Falange. Far from being underestimated or depreciated, their role was highly valued. Moreover, several leaders of the SF received high distinction and even sat in the Cortès (Parliament). As for the Women’s Section, it continued to have nearly 280,000 members in 1973 and was only dissolved on April 1, 1977.

Croatia

Katarina, Matanović-Kulenović (1913–2003)

When the German, Italian and Hungarian armies invaded Yugoslavia on April 6, 1941, Croatia rose up and declared her independence (April 10, 1941). The main actors in this coup were the Ustashas, ​​i.e., Croatian nationalist militants who had been fighting against Yugoslavia since 1929. Their founder and leader (Poglavnik) was the lawyer Dr. Ante Pavelić (1889–1959) who established the Independent State of Croatia (Nezavisna Država Hrvatska—NDH). This new state was quickly recognized by the Axis powers, having little choice to contemplate other possible non-Fascist alliances. Therefore, from then on Croatia found herself associated with the New Order, more by necessity and less by popular desire or by ideological affinities. In any case, Croatia had partly adopted the New Order discourse, contours and decorum, which, after World War II cost her a lot in terms of civilian casualties and worldwide media ostracism.

A patriotic movement in the Catholic and agrarian tradition, the Ustasha movement had an extensive women’s branch which had played a major role in the fight for independence. Very early on, prior to independence, the Ustasha Women’s Revolutionary Action (Revolucionarna ustaška ženska akcijaRUŽA or “Rose”) had become involved in clandestine action, under the leadership of Josipa Šaban. These women were often entrusted with missions of the highest importance. In 1934, for instance, it was the young woman Stana Godina who was in charge of transporting to Aix–en–Provence in France the weapons used in the assassination of the King of Yugoslavia, Alexander Karadjordević.  (October 9, 1934).

After the creation of the Independent State of Croatia, the Ustasha movement transformed itself into a single party, with a female section, the Ženska loza ustaškog pokreta led by the schoolteacher Irena Javor (1914–1945). The young girls who were part of the Ustaška Youth (Ustaška mladež), before joining the Women’s Labor Service (Radna služba ženske ustaške mladeži) were commanded by Maća Mimić. For women college students, the University Labor Service (Radna pomoć sveučilistarski) was established, chaired by Ivona Latković–Maixner (1917–2014). On the initiative of several Croat academics, women’s sections were also set up everywhere in the newly established state, primarily in the cities. In the capital Zagreb, the women’s organizations thrived under the authority of Olga Osterman (1885–1955), a former high school principal (and holder of the Pro Ecclesia and Pontifice Cross); she was assisted by the teachers Vlasta Arnold (1896– 1963), Silva Radej and Ela Maroš, as well as Mandica Lučić and Djurdjica Vitković.

Overall, the new regime promoted the social advancement of women: 141 elementary schools and nine high schools were  opened, including five for girls. Young female high school students  were encouraged to apply at local colleges (e.g., their number increased from 120 to 727 between April 1941 and spring 1942 at the Law School in Zagreb). The new state of Croatia also championed several artists including the painter Anka Krizmanić (1896–1987) and the sculptor Ksenija Kanteci (1909–1995) who were also invited to represent Croatian contemporary art at major international exhibitions during World War II (Berlin, Vienna, Bratislava). The organization had its own monthly magazine, Ustaškinja, run by Silva Radej. Several personalities from the literary world, such as the novelist Mara Švel–Gamiršek (1900–1975) and the essayist Zdenka Smrekar (1884–1946) lent their support to this project. Being the subject of incessant miliary attacks by the communist guerrillas (Josip Broz Tito’s supporters) and monarchist militiamen (Draža Mihajlović’s Chetniks), the Croat Armed Forces (HOS) then took center stage. Of course, women were not drafted because that would go against the Catholic and traditionalist ethics of the Ustasha regime, but some of them nevertheless served in the military. The best known woman in the Croat military was undoubtedly the aviatrix and parachutist Katarina Kulenović-Matanović (1913–2003) who was in charge of the personal aircraft of Ustasha Minister Ante Vokić. Also worth mentioning is the first certified paratrooper in the new Croatian state, Zdenka Žibrat. On the other hand, there was an inconspicuous Women’s Auxiliary Service protecting the head of the state Ante Pavelić, or the “Poglavnik Guard” (Pomočna ženska služba Poglavnikovih tjelesnih sdrugova) commanded by Nada Miškulin, a niece of Ministers Ivica and Mate Frković.

Given the tense multiethnic situation inherited from monarchist Yugoslavia—and particularly the difficult multifront context of World War II in which the Independent State of Croatia was born, it impossible to review in a completely thorough and objective manner the condition of the local female populations during the four years of Ustasha rule (1941–1945). Similar to Germany, Italy or Spain and despite the war, the new state endeavored to take measures promoting housing, hygiene, health, families and the well-being of children (33). Efforts were also made to promote education and career advancement of women. As for the militant women who explicitly committed themselves to the regime, they generally devoted themselves to tasks of medical aid, maternal assistance, pediatrics and provisioning, which cannot be regarded as dishonorable activities (34). As a price for their actions and services in the new WWII Croatian regime, many women faced extremely cruel repression following  the Yugoslav communist takeover in May 1945 (35). Contemporary historians and critics of the post-World War II New Order hardly want to discuss  those tragic and bloody events, including the gigantic  antifa-communist mass killing fields in communist Yugoslavia.

France

Lucienne Delforge (1909–1987)

Regarding France, it is not easy to draw up an objective assessment because only a few opposition parties and movements had really joined the New Order. Rather conservative, counter–revolutionary and traditionalist, the French Vichy state of Marshal Pétain (1940–1944) does not quite fit into this picture. Neither does the patriotic organization of the Croix de Feu (36). If one considers various groups (apart from the Vichy state) which followed a political line close to that of Italy and Germany, it doesn’t appear that the question of the status of women in France was their main concern. However, this did not prevent those groups from attracting a significant female audience. Some claim for example, that 25 percent of the members of Marcel Déat’s Rassemblement national–populaire (National Popular Rally—RNP) were women. In any case, this party had a youth organization, the Jeunesse nationale–populaire (National Popular Youth—NP), with a female branch whose leader was Christiane de Clerck. An appendage to the party, the Front social du travail (Social Front of Labor), of corporatist inspiration, also had a women’s union led by Odette Ballossier. As to the movement of Jacques Doriot, i.e., Le Parti populaire français (French People’s Party—PPF), women members were welcomed enthusiastically. Under the leadership of Yolande Cencetti and Paulette Tourton, young women were encouraged to join the Jeunes filles françaises (Young French Girls—JFF), i.e., a female section of the Jeunesses populaire françaises (JPF) (37). Several other movements of more modest size, such as the Équipes nationales (National Teams), the Guides francistes (Francist Guides) and the Jeunes de l’Europe nouvelle (Young People of New Europe) also had a few hundred young girls in their ranks. However, on the scale of a country as large as France, one must admit that the enlistment of women remained quite modest.

It must be pointed out that at the time when the New Order movements and parties managed to play a small role in political life—namely during the German occupation of France, most people had other things in mind than the emancipation and promotion of women. Most people were much more concerned about the presence on national soil of foreign troops, the partitioning of the country into two halves, food rationing, air raids, terrorist attacks, the condition of prisoners, etc. It is therefore difficult to fully evaluate the mindset of these groups regarding the feminine question, or to judge their real appeal based solely on the number of their female members.

If for many French women the New Order had a bitter flavor of something imposed by the enemy, a number of them tolerated the new system quite well. One cannot go into every detail regarding many individuals who enlisted in the ranks of the Milice française (French Militia) (38) or ignore the superficial and opportunistic rallying of a handful of cinema and artistic celebrities (39). But a few women in fact did more than simply tolerate the new situation. Some wholeheartedly adhered to the New Order. Thus the famous opera singer Claire Croiza (1882–1946) sat on the honorary committee of the Groupe Collaboration (Collaboration Group), while the great pianist (40) Lucienne Delforge (1909–1987) displayed in all circumstances a commitment which will lead her to Sigmaringen (a place in Germany where the French collaborationist government retreated following the Anglo–American Allied liberation of Paris, in August 1944). The brilliant soprano Germaine Lubin (1890–1979) joined Doriot’s PPF and socialized with the military elites in the Ger,am general headquarters in Paris (41). The very popular Léo Marjane (1912–2016) occasionally sang for the Légion des volontaires français (Legion of French Volunteers—LVF) and made charitable contributions to the PPF. The lawyer (and former communist) Juliette Goublet (1904–1979) even volunteered  to work in a factory in Germany (42), while the sculptor and aviation record holder Madeleine Charnaux (1902–1943) made no secret of her sympathy for the European New Order. All this, admittedly,  may seem quite  anecdotal, but it certainly does not convey the modern media image of a society where women were allegedly despised and relegated to subordinate tasks.

Go to Part 3.

———————————————

Notes

(23) In fact, the Women’s Section was founded by Pilar and Carmen Primo de Rivera, the chief’s sisters, Inés and Dolores, his cousins, and Luisa María Aramburu, a family friend.

(24) See. “María Paz Unciti, un Lucero de 18 años.” https://fnff.es/historia/maria–paz–unciti–un–lucero–de–1–anos/

(25) Spanish Carlist (monarchist) militiamen. More than 60,000 or 41 tercios (battalions) fought in the nationalist camp.

(26) She was ennobled and made Baroness of Claret and Countess of Areny in 1951, in recognition of her charitable work. In 1945, she was considered the most widely read author in the country.

(27) … who missed the Nobel Prize of Literature by one vote in 1926.

(28) who reformed the Spanish Civil Code. See. María Pilar Queralt del Hierro, “Mercedes Formica, la falangista que luchaba por las mujeres en la España de Franco.”  https://www.lavanguardia.com/historiayvida/historia–contemporanea/20230308/8804200/mercedes–formica–falangista –luchaba–mujeres–espana–franco.html

(29) who became the mayor of Bilbao between 1969 and 1975. See. “Pilar Careaga Basabe, primera mujer ingeniero de España, falangista y alcadesa de Bilbao.” https://fnff.es/historia/pilar–careaga–basabe–primera–mujer–ingeniero–de–espana–falangista–y–alcaldesa –from–bilbao/

(30) Notably María Josefa Viñamata Castanyer (1914–1982), Mercedes de Despujol Magarola, Montserrat de Romaña Pujó (1906–2005) and Núria Pla y Montseny (1915–2011).

(31) In 1941, 282,000 recruits were serving in the SSM.

(32) See. Javier Martín García, “Clarita Stauffer, la dama que escondía Nazis en España.” https://www.clarin.com/mundo/clarita–stauffer–dama–escondia–nazis–espana_0_n1anVkAiX.html

(33) For example, the wife of the head of state, Mara Pavelić, and her daughters sponsored an institution, the Ustaški dječački zavod, intended to take care of war orphans. Entrusted to the Sisters of Saint–Vincent de Paul, the establishment opened on April 11, 1942.

(34) As in the case of Germany, we are of course, not discussing here female camp guards and jailers –– who were only a handful.

(35) During the war, several female Ustasha militants were tortured and executed by the communist partisans (one of the best-known victims at the time was Andjelka Sarić, whose torturers carved a large “U,” the Ustasha emblem, on her breast before murdering her). Furthermore, several thousand other women were killed during the Bleiburg massacre and during the death marches that followed. See. Christophe Dolbeau, “Bleiburg, démocide yougoslave” (Bleiburg, Yugoslav democide), in Tabou no. 17, 2010: 7–26. Véridique histoire des oustachis (True history of the Ustashis) (Akribeia, Saint–Genis–Laval, 2015, 207–216.

(36) From 1934, the Croix–de–Feu had a women’s section; directed by Antoinette de Preval (1892–1977), this section brought together nearly 60,000 women.

(37) First entitled Union populaire de la jeunesse française (Popular Union of French Youth —UPJF).

(38) See: Fabienne Frayssinet, Quatre saisons dans les geôles de la IVe République (Four seasons in the jails of the Fourth Republic) (Regain, Monte–Carlo, 1953).

(39) For example Corinne Luchaire, Charlotte Lysès, Yvette Lebon, Suzy Delair, Danielle Darrieux, Viviane Romance or Édith Piaf (photographed in August 1943 in front of the Brandenburg Gate).

(40) Also a fencer, a basketball player, a mountaineer and …  former mistress of the writer Louis-Ferdinand Céline.

(41) See Karine Le Bail, La musique au pas (Paris: CNRS Édition, 2016), 224–226.

(42) This hiring cost her five years of forced labor and suffering national degradation, which did not prevent her from subsequently having an honorable literary career and receiving a prize from the French Academy in 1959.

De-demonization: Women in the Fascist New Order (Part 1)

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 21st 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.

The Free Press Versus Darryl Cooper for deviating from the WWII narrative

When Tucker Carlson and Darryl Cooper discussed the Second World War in September, Cooper named Winston Churchill as the “chief villain”, condemned the legacy of the war and attributed the present state of Britain to it. Pro-Churchill historians reacted: Niall Ferguson and Victor Davis Hanson (and the author and columnist Sohrab Amari) at Bari Weiss’ Free Press; Ferguson in conversation with Ben Shapiro; Andrew Roberts in a series of interviews; Ferguson, Hanson and Roberts together at the Hoover Institution.

The historians, though they regarded Cooper as unscholarly, stooped to respond due to the enormity of Carlson’s audience. The conversation’s view count on X is nearly 35 million. The wide interest and the reaction should both have been expected. The war, nearly eight decades past, continues to be the main justification for a political consensus of which most faux conservatives, including Roberts, Ferguson and Hanson, are adherents, and in which it is mandatory for Britons and other people of European descent to submit to being reduced to despised minorities in their ancestral lands. Advocacy for whites is likened to ‘Nazism’, which is the ultimate evil. Following the example of Churchill, who followed that of Disraeli, the same people treat advocacy for Jews as obviously necessary and laudable. The Churchillian version of the history of 1933–45 is the basis of post-war anti-fascism, the ideology of the pro-Jewish, anti-White regimes that control Britain, the USA, Canada, France, Germany and nearly every other white country. For Cooper and Carlson to say or imply this to an audience of tens of millions did indeed warrant a defence of the crucial narrative; this was especially so as X has permitted a large degree of free discussion since Elon Musk’s purchase of the site in 2022, an act which itself repudiated the authoritarian demands of the Jewish advocacy groups for whom “the guilt of the Holocaust” is an asset.

Cooper and the historians’ dispute is over what is true but also over who should rule. People on both sides of the debate agreed that the pro-Churchill history of the Second World War constitutes, in Cooper’s phrase, the “founding mythology of the… current global order.” Cooper stated that “The post-World War II order is really defined by the fact that after Nuremberg, it became effectively illegal in the West to be genuinely right wing…”, to which Niall Ferguson responded: “The only right-wing parties that are illegal in Europe today are Nazi parties. And the only people who regard the Nuremberg war crimes trials as a “sacrificial ritual”—Cooper again—are Nazis.” Ferguson was side-stepping a true statement: it did become effectively illegal to be genuinely right-wing. In all but a few insignificant instances, that is what ‘Nazi’ has meant since the war. Anti-fascism is a collaboration of the ‘centre right’ with the left against everyone else; it is an acid test to distinguish the real right from the fake. It is also a pretext for ruling elites to act against those they rule. In politics it is approvingly called the cordon sanitaire, the disease being ‘the far right’, or white people attempting to organise and defend themselves. The aim of anti-fascism is to render them defenceless. Refuting its historical justification is thus an existential imperative for whites, just as maintaining it is for the present regime.

Ferguson spoke approvingly to Ben Shapiro of the “emergence of multi-racial societies”, i.e., the presence of foreign races in large and growing numbers in white countries (not Israel), as though it were not brought about intentionally by politicians and activists. He objected to the following:

Carlson: “If Churchill is a hero, how come there are British girls begging for drugs on the streets of London and London is not majority-English now?”

Cooper: “The people who formulated the version of history that considers Churchill a hero, they like London the way it is now.”

Carlson: “But that’s not victory, that’s the worst kind of defeat, is it not?”

Cooper: “If you’re an English person who cares about England, it is.”

Ferguson accuses them of implying that “some terrible degradation has happened to Britain because of immigration”. He grants that “They don’t quite go right into Great Replacement theory” but, still, “that’s clearly where the conversation is heading by the end”. Andrew Roberts agrees that it was “a racist rant”. Ferguson warns that the Nazis emerged as a reaction against the formation of multi-ethnic societies in the previous century and informs us that “We can’t unmake the multi-cultural societies that have evolved since Churchill’s death”, as though infeasibility is his real objection. One could hardly disagree that the “worst possible way to react to the emergence of multi-racial societies is racial policies that aspire not just to forced resettlement but to genocide”, but racial policies that effect resettlement without genocide would obviously be the best possible way to react, if only those with the will had the power.

Roberts, Hanson and Ferguson

Sohrab Amari appears to see clearly how historical narrative relates to power. He warns us against “the Barbarian Right”, which, he explains, has

“a revulsion for the mildly egalitarian conservatism that took hold across the West in the postwar period. That conservatism made its peace with the civil rights movement and marginalized Jew-haters. The barbarians cannot stand the resulting state of affairs, since it has meant granting the grubby demands of the ‘dysgenic’ many. … Therefore, they feel compelled to attack what they see as the founding ‘mythology’ of the postwar world…”

Cooper and Carlson deserve some gratitude for provoking the defenders of the “resulting state of affairs” to be so plain about their allegiance.

Andrew Roberts, responding to Aaron McLean’s suggestion that “the Second World War, its contemporary understanding, and Churchill’s iconic status form a kind of founding mythology for our current world”, said, “Yes. Absolutely. Thank God it does”. He cited the legacy of anti-appeasement, anti-totalitarianism, anti-isolationism, and standing up for small nations against invasion by larger neighbors, asserting that “we should be thankful” to Churchill for it. Perhaps Baron Roberts has more reason to be thankful than most. At any rate, his answer accurately identified nearly all the foreign policy components of Amari’s “mildly egalitarian conservatism,” only omitting unconditional support for Israel. Of the places ‘egalitarian conservatives’ identify as suitable objects of military intervention, including Gaza, the populations are invited to move to White countries to accelerate Ferguson’s “emergence”. Authentic conservatives like Patrick Buchanan and Joseph Sobran perceived decades ago that advocates of invasion tended also to be those of invitation; they were condemned and excluded as anti-Semites by the likes of John Lukacs, a comrade of Lord Roberts, for straying outside the cordon. That the same charge, anti-Semitism, is levelled at all opponents of immigration into the West tells its own story.

Britain, in Victor Davis Hanson’s words, “went to war on the principle of a third-party nation’s territorial integrity”. As Hanson says, Britain “saw World War II through from the first day to the very last” and, “of the victorious Big Three, … alone foresaw well before the war that it would likely end any cataclysmic war strategically diminished, its empire gone, and without its centuries-long global stature.” While for Hanson this is laudatory, he describes what made the war a triumphant, ascendant moment for the left: the complete abandonment of British interests by British leaders.

Ferguson says that while AJP Taylor called Churchill the saviour of his nation, he was inclined to credit him with saving the whole of the West or even the world. The ‘Nazi menace’ must have been terrible indeed, as, in delivering us from it, and from our own “Barbarian” tendencies, our saviours have shamelessly afflicted us with Rotherham and Rochdale, where British girls are lured into “granting the grubby demands of the ‘dysgenic’ many” thanks to ‘egalitarian conservatives’ “making peace”, and laws, with the “civil rights movement”. That movement, really a network of anti-white activists, went under the name ‘race relations’ in Britain and was instigated primarily by Anthony Lester and Richard Stone, neither of whom, recalling Cooper’s allusion, was “an English person” or “care[d] about England”. Both were strongly-identifying Jews, as is Bari Weiss, organiser of the anti-Cooper reaction, who sees Cooper and Carlson’s remarks as part of “the war on our history”. The Churchillian telling is, indeed, her history, the one that convinces Whites to submit to the demands of her kind and the decline of their own: ‘anything but Nazism’. The more whites become aware of its speciousness, the less they yield. Bravo, Cooper.

The Psychology of Trump Derangement

Why, in the wake of Donald Trump’s convincing victory in the presidential election, would it occur to somebody to pick up their phone, film themselves screaming and shouting “Why?!” and “No!” and then post this online, much to the amusement of Trump supporters? What is the psychology of an adult who records themselves having a tantrum, of the kind of 3 year-old might have, and then publishes it?

Let’s put aside the publishing it for a moment and simply look at the fact of having a tantrum at all. Such people are obviously deeply unhappy that Trump has won; indeed they are emotionally unhinged by this fact. As I have explored in my book Woke Eugenics: How Social Justice is a Mask for Social Darwinism, numerous studies concur that leftists are relatively high in the personality trait of Neuroticism; in experiencing negative feelings such as anger, paranoia and anxiety strongly. They are also high in grandiose Narcissism; in believing that they are perfect and superior and in being highly entitled and manipulative. This combines Neuroticism and low Agreeableness.

The grandiosity element of Narcissism develops as a consequence of Neuroticism: You feel intensely negative about yourself so you tell yourself that you are wonderful; you create a false self, in this case one in which you are morally perfect and powerful. The “entitlement” element is a consequence of low Agreeableness and can develop if you are spoilt: you always get everything you want so you have never had to develop coping mechanisms for not getting what you want.

Trump’s victory has inflicted two Narcissistic injuries on these kinds of people. Firstly, it has left them questioning their own superiority (as if they are wrong in their Woke worldview, then the illusion of superiority is shattered) and it has left them feeling powerless and unimportant and so confronted with their own unfathomable negative feelings.

Secondly, they haven’t got what they want. They are not used to this and they have not learnt to cope with it happening. What is the result? Uncontrollable fear and rage. Like a child, they have a tantrum as a means of bullying mummy into giving them what they want or into ensuring that they are not failed by mummy again.

In addition, they are likely to feel an intense sense of fear. Borderline Personality Disorder is often co-morbid with Narcissism. Sufferers have a fundamental fear of abandonment, display intense mood-swings (as if stuck at a child-like stage), oscillate between extremes (such as Narcissism to self-loathing; deep love to intense hatred) and, thus, have unstable goals. Under stress, they can display psychosis, in which they become absurdly paranoid. Being psychotic is a survival strategy in a dangerous and unstable world; it will cause the evil orange man to be frightened and keep away from you. They are adapted, in other words, to an unpredictable environment, in which parental love has been capricious. This fear of abandonment, and consequent Borderline Personality, may be behind an aspect of these breakdowns. For extreme-leftists, the state is Mummy and the state has abandoned them to the wicked, abusive Step-Daddy.

Obviously, the fact of having a tantrum has two positive consequences in a purely mechanical sense. If you are stressed then your muscles tighten. Having a tantrum releases tension in the muscles. It also releases endorphins. Hence, it makes you feel slightly better to have a little breakdown.

But that explains how they feel. What about the performative element to these breakdowns? Why publish them online? One answer is that it allows them to socially signal to other leftists just how committed to “social justice” they are. Rather like North Koreans competitively crying upon the death of Kim Il-Sung, they are competitively furious upset and aghast as a way of indicating just how deeply they believe in Woke ideas.

There may also be a manipulative element to this as well. In a sense, they might be seen to be vulnerability-signalling; signalling that they are out of control and need help. The left are not only high in Grandiose Narcissism but also in Vulnerable Narcissism. More common among women, you believe you are wonderful and that you deserve to be looked after. To achieve this, you present yourself as a misunderstood victim, the world’s biggest victim, and this manipulates people into doing what you want. Are they hoping that their cries of pain will persuade people to look after them by standing up to the evil orange man?

Their problem is that the more they engage in such behaviour, and the more extreme it becomes, the more likely people are to look into what is happening and to realise that these people are simply deeply mentally unstable and selfish.

They are the 15 year-old girls who burn themselves with cigarette lighters to get attention and to feel a sense of control over their chaotic world. They are manipulative and dangerous and should probably be institutionalised, yet Americans have been forced to live inside their heads for at least the past decade. Hopefully, as well as building a physical wall on the southern border, Trump’s victory will allow Americans to build a psychological wall between themselves and these nasty, manipulative young women.