Bardeche’s Type I and Type II
Coogan’s Dreamer of the Day includes a quote from Bardeche’s Suzanne et le Tandis (Suzanne and the Slums), in the chapter: “Le Fascisme International” that seems more complete and accurate (and free from spelling and grammar errors) than the version popping up on the Alt Right. This quote includes:
I have known, after Clarence, very many “fascists,” for the race is not dead. Some of them had boots, they were familiar with the runes, and they camped out on the night of the solstice in order to sing under the stars the beautiful solemn songs of their ancestors. The others did not have boots, they held up their skinny reformers’ heads severely, they wore glasses, they collected cards, and they made furious speeches. All were poor, they believed, they fought, they detested lying and injustice.
The precise translation is less important than the general point being made; an important distinction between different fascist archetypes, even though it is made in a bemused fashion, in jest, and even though I’m sure Bardeche didn’t mean to focus on that distinction in his quote. Nevertheless, regardless of intention and style, there is food for thought here.
Bardeche correctly identifies two archetypes of fascists; thus:
Type I: Some of them had boots, they were familiar with the runes, and they camped out on the night of the solstice in order to sing under the stars the beautiful solemn songs of their ancestors.
Type II: The others did not have boots, they held up their skinny reformers’ heads severely, they wore glasses, they collected cards, and they made furious speeches.
To translate into a context more familiar to the racial nationalist “movement” of today: Type I would be a pure representation of a type that would tend to include: ethnonationalists, Nordicists, Traditionalists, ethnic fetishists, and Hitler worshippers; while Type II would be a pure representation of a type that would tend to include: pan-Europeanists, Futurists, and Imperium-oriented Yockeyites.
Type I, in its purest representation, would tend to be an extroverted, action-oriented mesomorph; Type II would be an introverted, intellect-oriented ectomorph (not sure where endomorphs would fit in, as so many of them tend to be leftists to begin with).
That is not to say that Type I activists are never intellectual, nor that Type II activists are devoid of action, simply that on a spectrum, Type I are relatively action over intellect and Type II are relatively intellect over action.
Bardeche classified both types as: All were poor, they believed, they fought, they detested lying and injustice. That may be true, although I think the “they detested lying and injustice” part applies mostly to Type II. It are the Type II activists who would tend to be more of the Moralpath type. Type I activists would tend to be more pragmatists, being as they are more action-oriented in any case. While both types include Vangaurdists, Mainstreamers are almost exclusively Type I. Type II activists, with their severe affect and furious speeches (or, today, blog posts – “crazed and bitter,” eh?), are hardly the Mainstreamer type.
While most activists would tend to have some traits of both types, they would be skewed in one direction or another.
Some more or less “pure” types exist. Your host, Ted Sallis, is a more or less a pure Type II. Francis Parker Yockey himself was a Type II. Most Anglosphere activists in Der Movement are definitely Type I, certainly in the USA. The Alt Right, with all its intellectual pretensions, is actually heavily represented by Type I activists, at least among the rank-and-file. In general, Type Is will outnumber Type IIs, the latter being a distinct minority.
Leaders are a mixed bag, and historical fascist leaders have shown mixed characteristics of both types. Most interesting is when there is a distinct mismatch between ideology and personality; the person has the ideology of one fascist type, but the personality of another. This is a crucially important point. While Bardeche’s quote delves mostly into personality, it bleeds into ideology: those boot-wearing activists obsessed with runes, ancestral songs, and the solstice (as well as Viking horns and mead, eh?) would tend to gravitate toward ethnonationalist and/or Nordicist ideologies, and be enamored of “traditionalism,” while those idealists with their skinny severe reformer heads, furious speeches, glasses and other introvert tendencies (card-collecting being a metaphor for introverted intellectualism) would tend to gravitate toward pan-Europeanism, Futurism and other manifestations of avant-garde politics, and visions of Imperium.
Personality and ideology are often linked, but when the linkage breaks down, all sorts of strange fascistic hybrids are observed. For example, Hitler politically was Type I, but his personality was more Type II. Certain Alt Right ethnonationalists mimic Hitler to the extent that they are ideologically Type I but have the “bookish” and intellect-oriented Type II character. Conversely, some pan-European Alt Righters are the opposite: politically Type II but with Type I personalities.
On the other hand, when personality and ideology more or less perfectly coincide, then from that synergy you get the “impossible” extreme Moralpath types – a Ted Sallis or a Francis Parker Yockey.
There is no doubt more to analyze on this topic but this is a useful beginning.