The Logic of Capitalism and Race

According to Attorney-General Eric Holder, all Americans are cowards when it comes to race. The statement springs from Holder’s view -- and Obama’s -- that white Americans are unwilling to discuss race to their Black satisfaction. We should find such a statement ironic coming from the lips of the first black attorney general serving under the first (half) black president of a nation conceived of and hacked out of the wilderness by whites still running on the fumes of white ideas and genius. More ironic is the fact that, should Americans drop their cowardice and pretence and take up an open and truly honest discussion of race, Holder and his master might find it slapping back in their faces in truly a rude fashion.

For example, they may have to answer embarrassing questions about the decline of Detroit under black domination or questions of why blacks remain well below whites in terms of success. But don’t expect those questions ever to make it into any national debate over race because the real racial cowards are blacks themselves who don’t want the focus to shift to their duplicity. Moreover, neither does the white capitalist elite who benefit from not talking about race.

Capitalism, particularly global capitalism, has replaced the traditional concept of race as individuals belonging to a long historic almost familial chain of similar people with the idea of amassing wealth and living the good life. Under capitalism, egotism trumps race awareness. One may feel subconsciously that one's race is one's family but consciously one also realizes that families are expensive and in an atomized culture that celebrates acquisition as the prime motivation of the individual.

However, a race of people is not an accidental sum of individuals. It is not a chance accumulation. It is a reunion of inheritors of a specific fraction of human history, who, on the basis of the sense of common adherence, develop the will to pursue their own history and give themselves a common destiny.

But let’s face it, babies are expensive. They are also time-consuming and damn demanding. It’s better not to have them since they get in the way of playing video games or cheering on your favorite millionaire athlete or watching Oprah. In this way capitalist societies destroy races because the individuals that populate them do not sufficiently reproduce. Simply put, races die when their members want to make money more than they want to make and rear children. The fact is a race reproduces itself or it dies. Capitalism promotes abandonment of racial awareness by emphasizing the individual’s “need” and desires. It promotes the individual as a MERE individual with no bonds and no commitments. In capitalism, consuming goods is the highest goal, it is self-fulfillment.

Capitalism promotes abandonment of racial awareness because the people at the top of this atomistic heap benefit from cheap racially alien labor either by exporting jobs to Third World hovels or importing Third World people into the nation (thus the global aspect). This upper class or managerial class tends to be of the same race as the people at the bottom whom its members are screwing, but their actions (and attitudes) mark them as individuals apart. They are concerned exclusively with the needs of their own tiny class above the needs of the rest of their own people, nation and society. These attitudes have cascaded down to the bottom as well so that all stratas are primarily concerned with their own economic well-being. Like drowning rats they fight and claw one another for a spot on the ever shrinking raft of prosperity. Unless it liberates itself from the flawed effects of this global capitalist mentality whites are doomed to further decline and death.

Common markets, currency unions, and supra-national organizations like the European Parliament are symptoms of both the attack on race and the victory of pure economics. If local loyalties and racial loyalties no longer matter, only economic efficiency is left. The Deutsche Mark, the Pound Sterling, and the traditions and sovereignties they represent can all be brushed aside if a single European currency would be more efficient.

Real ‘organic’ society or nation can only exist where people have developed a firm sense of historical and spiritual commitment to their community. In such an organic polity, the law must not derive from some abstract preconceived principles, but rather from the genius of the people and its unique historical character. In such a democracy, the sense of community must invariably preside over individualistic and economic self-interests.

Strangely, whites hand out billions of dollars every year in social services to non-whites, and pass affirmative action legislation to help them compete against whites for jobs and education. Whites promote mass Third-World immigration, and white politicians try to make immigration easier and more attractive. Whites willingly surrender whole neighborhoods to immigrants. In short, whites consider it praiseworthy to work in the interests of other races, but disreputable to work in their own.

Put directly, a left-wing sensibility pervades the managerial elite. Leftists are an aberration of nature. They have not inherited basic defence and survival mechanisms that optimise the survival of their genes. Their basic survival mechanisms are lacking, and this could well explain why liberals and Leftists generally consider it a matter of individual ‘choice’ regarding such issues as abortion, and “gay marriage” e.g., rather than as a matter for the entire social organism, reflecting its chances of genetic continuity. The Leftist has an overly rationalised response to his environment that is detached from instinct. It might be said that the liberal is an aberration of nature, a revolt against his own self as an organism, an aberration bereft of the will to genetic perpetuity; that liberalism (and its variants of communism and feminism) literally means DEATH.

Obama a Fascist?

As many have pointed out, the frenzy Barack Obama produced in his followers during the 2008 presidential campaign is quite reminiscent of the reaction to men like Benito Mussolini, Adolph Hitler, Corneliu Codreanu, Leon Degrelle and Primo de Rivera. Interestingly, all of those men were fascists or National Socialists. His cult of personality is genuine and widespread, particularly among the media elites. With that in mind, can we see any ideological parallels between Obama and the ideas of those icons of the 1930s?

After more than 100 days in office there can be no question that Obama favors state control and management of the economy. Americans (foolishly) shy away from the term socialism, but any honest person who has studied the American president’s words and deeds would have to admit that Obama is a socialist. But there is a deeper quality to Obama’s socialism that comes in contact with the very ideas and work that characterized Mussolini, Hitler, Codreanu, Degrelle and Rivera. His approach in solving the economic crisis has been classically fascist in that he has sought to bring business, labor and the state together to work the solution out in triad. Though heavy on state power, the method is, nonetheless, Synarchistic corporativism in every way.

At this point, the Democratic Party stands alone as the master of the state. The Republicans have been vanquished and are not likely to rebound to challenge them for control. This could mean the establishment of a one-party state, particularly after eight years of Obama pulling more and more of the American economy under his umbrella. The more that happens the less likely those who run business will be to back Republicans particularly when they can be punished for doing so.

For almost a century, the Democrats have gradually been developing a large client base that is beholding to the state. A veteran of the rough and tumble world of Chicago politics, Obama knows how to fed the carrot and bash with the stick. This is the kind of raw fascism that Mussolini used to ascend and take power in Italy and he did it with fewer resources than Obama has within his grasp.

Moreover, Obama’s fascist soul is reflected in the words of his wife, Michelle:
“Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.”

Mussolini could not have crafted a better creed. More interestingly, during that fateful campaign, supporters decided that Obama needed his own “salute.”

“Our goal,” said Rick Husong, a key financial backer of Obama, “is to see a crowd of 75,000 people at Obama’s nomination speech holding their hands above their heads, fingers laced together in support of a new direction for this country, a renewed hope, and acceptance of responsibility for our future. We thought, 'Let's try and start a movement where even while walking down the street, people would hold up the O and you would know that they were for Obama.”

An ad agency came up with what the Obamaites hoped would serve as a symbol of hope and progress that also plays off Obama's name. The salute called for loyalists to interlace their hands in a circle, as a symbol of different types of people coming together. The circle would also serve as a symbol of unity. Husong urged people to download it and print it on posters and T-shirts. “We want to see it everywhere, but more importantly we want this sign to take the world by storm.”

Italian Fascism and the Syndicalist connection

One of the key features in the development of Italian Fascism was the ideological inspiration it drew from Syndicalism. After World War I Fascism became the rightful heir to the movement that operated on the left wing of Italy’s Socialist Party. Many of Syndicalism’s ideological shapers and leaders became prominent fascists, deeply influencing Benito Mussolini. By mixing in other ideas – Synarchism, Technocracy, Futurism and militarism – modern fascism took form.

Georges Sorel was the most influential theoretician of Syndicalism in France at the time. His revision of Marx led Sorel towards a new conception of revolution that set him against the Marxist model. Direct action, violence and the social myth of mobilisation were all concepts that the Italian syndicalists borrowed from Sorel. It was around these concepts that a new brand of active, nationalist-oriented and elite Socialism was to be defined by Arturo Labriola, Enrico Leone and their intellectual followers. Sorel’s contribution to Italian Syndicalism is extremely important because the Italian theoreticians contributed to the revision of Marx by attempting to integrate economic marginalism with Marx’s theory of value. This revision brought an ideological change, which, coupled with Sorel’s influence, shifted Italian Syndicalism away from its Marxist origins producing, in the wake of World War I, a whole new concept of socialism, a national socialism with a nationalistic vision.

Deep doubts about Marx’s predictions of revolution flaming out of capitalism’s cyclical and deepening crises moved many socialists to shift their views. Organized labor was able to obtain direct benefits for the working class through negotiations. The political system adapted to this situation by legitimising the presence and activities of socialist parties, within the liberal democratic framework.

However, any idea of compromise with capitalism within the framework of a liberal parliamentary democracy was out of the question. Looking for a new way to the socialist uprising, these heretics found their way to Syndicalism, absorbing much of Sorel’s influence in the process. In Avenir socialiste des syndicats Sorel expressed the need to concentrate on the renovating forces of society in the syndicate, where a new elite should be educated morally and technically to be able to take over the production process from an already decadent bourgeoisie. In the next stage, in the Reflexions sur la violence, violence is seen as the renovating force in history and as the way to bring the masses into action.

Sorel centered his analysis on the concept of violence transformed into “direct action” exercised by a revolutionary elite. The recruitment of the forces of change should be made through the marshaling myth of the revolutionary general strike. With this in mind, the syndicalist intellectuals attacked the political attitudes of the Socialist Party and proposed to place revolutionary actions directly in the economic arena, in the field of production. Since the workers’ lives took place between the factory and the syndicate, socialist political theory had to be constructed around these two dimensions of proletarian reality. The factory represented actuality, the place where the production process took place. The syndicate represented the future, the place where the workers were to be morally and technically educated in order to be able to take over the direction of the production process from the capitalists. Syndicalism wanted to eliminate from the production process any kind of hierarchy that was not absolutely necessary for its technical improvement. The result would be a society organized solely on the basis of the fulfilment of economic needs, on consensual ties and on the technical discipline of production.

“The crisis of theoretic Socialism, as already stated, became unavoidable, due to the chasm between the old Marxist forms and the latest developments of economic science,” Arturo Labriola noted. “To fill this gap was the task of the actual movement of ideas directed to solve the crisis.” The Marxist economic analysis was seen by Labriola and Leone as obsolete. This line of economic thought had been preceded in Italy by the theories of Achille Loria. Benedetto Croce had also recognized the scientific value of syndicalism. From his point of view, Marxist economics completed the picture by providing an analysis of the sociological side of capital profit. Although both Labriola, Croce and other thinkers who worked on the revision of Marx provided a good opening, from the dominant socialist point of view, it was incomplete and unsatisfactory thus opening a (new) rift in the socialist bloc. The mainstream of the Italian Socialist Party was seen by the syndicalist wing as too willing to compromise with the state, on the basis of the acceptance of the principles of parliamentary liberal democracy by the socialist side, and the granting of all kinds of benefits to it by the liberal system. The benefits of such policies held up only as long as the economy flourished.

As a result, syndicalism became marginal within the socialist ranks, particularly within the ranks of the Italian Socialist Party. The second generation of syndicalist leaders and thinkers, men like Panunzio, Orano, Olivetti, Lanzillo, Bianchi and Rossoni, who started their political careers as revolutionary syndicalist socialists finished as fascists. Their political education, which included the revision of Marx along with Sorel’s doctrines, provided the grounds for their socialism. They became anti-Marxist, elitist and action-oriented. Their revolution was to be ethical, requiring higher moral values such as heroism and social altruism, and the will to fight and conquer. This new kind of socialism found a common language with Radical Nationalism that expanded greatly with Italy’s entry into World War I. for these Italian syndicalists, the nation had replaced the social class as the subject of history. It was National Syndicalism that gave fascism its first political program and a sound ideological underpinning.

The New Deal

As the final vestiges of American Capitalism begin to fracture and fall, many recall the Great Depression and the crisis that it created. Into that crisis came Franklin Roosevelt and his New Deal which saved America. Though today’s liberals will never admit it, the New Deal was inspired by Italian Fascism, particularly the synarchist element within fascism, better known as “the Corporate State.”

Roosevelt admired Italy’s Fascist dictator Benito Mussolini a great deal. “'I don't mind telling you in confidence,” FDR remarked to a White House correspondent, “that I am keeping in fairly close touch with that admirable Italian gentleman.” Rexford Tugwell, a leading adviser to the president, also had difficulty containing his enthusiasm for Mussolini's program: "It's the cleanest … most efficiently operating piece of social machinery I've ever seen. It makes me envious,” Tugwell noted.

At the London Economic Conference of June 1933, Reichsbank President Hjalmar Schacht smugly told the official Nazi newspaper Völkischer Beobachter that FDR had adopted the economic philosophy of Hitler and Mussolini. Even Hitler had kind words at first for Roosevelt’s “dynamic” leadership, stating that “I have sympathy with President Roosevelt because he marches straight to his objective over Congress, over lobbies, over stubborn bureaucracies.”

It goes without saying that the New Deal was a much milder form of the fascism instituted by Il Duce, but both systems tilted the balance sharply towards the state and away from society. In all of them, government gained power over business and other private interests in the name of and for the people, with the leaders seeking to impose a philosophy of life that subordinated the individual to the needs of the community – as defined by the state.

Overall, the New Deal was designed to pull those parts of the American economy not already controlled by the federal government into its grasp for the purposes of central planning. FDR established an alphabet soup of new federal agencies with the power to regulate specific sections of the economy for the short term goal of to raising wages and prices to push consumer “purchasing power.” FDR made several stabs at establishing corporatism. The first was the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 which was a direct attempt to cartelize industries and unions just like the Italian model, but the courts shot the effort down. The National Recovery Administration later tried the same thing using a different vocabulary. The NRA sought to organize industry into a federally supervised trade association. The term “Code Authority” was substituted for corporation, but it was essentially the same thing. These code authorities had the power to regulate production, quantities, qualities, prices, distribution methods, and other aspects of production and trade. It eventually ran afoul of anti-trust laws and had to be disbanded.

“There seems to be no question that (Mussolini) is really interested in what we are doing,” the president said, “and I am much interested and deeply impressed by what he has accomplished and by his evidenced, honest purpose in restoring Italy.”

George Lyndow: Front Fighter

George Warner Lyndow (1900-1975) was an American fascist who despite being persecuted for his beliefs, bounced back and almost single handedly preserved and promoted fascism in America after World War II.

A native of Vermont, Lyndow was the son of a lumber company executive. When the U.S. entered World War I in 1917, he joined the army and fought in France. Like many future fascists, the war had a profound effect on Lyndow who conceived of the kind of man forged in the trenches of the Great War as a creative and dynamic warrior; a man who recognized violence as a creative force and who was willing to risk all and sacrifice all for a great, transforming cause. As a result, these new men – fascist men -- were the only ones worthy of positions of power and prestige, unlike their crafty and conniving liberal parliamentary predecessors who were adept at starting wars but let others fight them.

After graduating from Amherst, Lyndow moved to New York and pursued a writing career. His first book The Dead, the Dying and the Damned had originally been written as a true account of his experiences in the war. However, his publisher suggested he turn it into a novel to better reflect Lyndow’s talent for dramatic narration. It proved to be a boon for the young writer as the novel sold well. In addition to a raft of articles, Lyndow produced several other books in the1920s.

It was in the 1920s that Lyndow became enamored of fascism. Fearing Bolshevism would consume Western civilization; Lyndow was impressed with the Italian Fascists’ success against them. Noting that Mussolini shared his views on war only drew him closer. Lyndow was so keen on fascism that he studied Italian and made two trips to Italy to see fascism for himself and to gather material for articles. In 1931 he published an article in 20th Century magazine titled, “Fascism: What it is and What it is Not” which stirred so much reader comment that Lyndow turned it into a 1933 book: The Future is Fascism.

By the early 1930s, Lyndow’s writing career began to wane and, with a wife and two children to support, he took outside jobs to make ends meet in the hard days of the Depression. Times were also hard for men of his convictions. “The fascist has no sanctuary in the political wilderness of this America,” Lyndow wrote in 1936 and wander he did. At various times he supported Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal (which he believed did not go far enough), Sen. Huey Long’s “Share the Wealth” movement, Father Charles Coughlin’s National Union for Social Justice (Lyndow introduced Coughlin at a rally in Rochester, NY and was a staff member on his presidential campaign), William Dudley Pelley’s Silvershirts and Wyman Yates’ Blueshirts. In 1937 Lyndow began publishing a bi-weekly, six-page mini-tabloid called Spearhead which offered support for fascism at home and the Mussolini and Hitler regimes abroad. At its height in 1940, Spearhead had 40,000 subscribers nationwide.

When the U.S. joined World War II, Spearhead was shut down by the federal government and Lyndow was arrested on charges of sedition. He was convicted of those charges in 1942 and sent to an internment camp at Seagoville, Texas (also located in that camp were American fascist sympathizers Wyman Yates, Theodore Andricks and John Travers as well as British BUF member Anthony Trumpington). Ironically, Lyndow’s eldest son, Paul (born in 1924), was killed fighting the Japanese in the Pacific. His father’s request to attend the funeral was denied.

After the war, Lyndow looked to start life over at almost 50. His wife had divorced him after his sedition conviction and, with no family reconciliation possible; he moved to Los Angeles in 1946 and took a job with Ostrum Printing. In 1951, Lyndow started a newsletter he called Frontline which was primarily an anti-communist publication. By placing ads for Frontline in various right-wing publications, he soon found a large group of subscribers and churned out weekly editions. He received some financial backing from wealthy Southern California businessman and anti-communist John Tunnison. With this infusion of cash, Lyndow established Spearhead Press (a tribute to his old 1930s broadsheet).

Spearhead Press started by reprinting a range of books on a variety of topics whose copy writes had run out and were considered in the public domain. By the mid-1950s the venture had proved so successful that Lyndow began publishing books by political authors, many of whom were supporters or were sympathetic to fascism. The writers for whom Lyndow provided an outlet reads like a who’s who of post-war fascism: Lawrence Dennis, Theodore Andricks, John Travers, Anthony Trumpington, Harold Lomax, Robert Thorwyn, Charles Ciroan, Orazio Zumez, Ronan O’Gara and Rex Burchill (William Jenkins). It was also about this time that he began bending Frontline more toward the fascist/Third Positionist point of view and spiced its contents with the writings of Dennis, Travers, Ciroan, Oswald Mosely, Paul LeLonde and Olis Danis.

Lyndow also used Spearhead Press to publish his own books: Confessions of an Enemy of the State (the account of his trial and imprisonment), False Glory: America in World War II and How We Got Here, How We Can Get Out (revisionist look at the 20th century/Cold War). He also published a valuable compendium of fascist/synarchist essays in Between the Monoliths: An Anti-Communist, Anti-Capitalist Reader.

Throughout the 1950s and into the mid-1970s, Lyndow was often a guest on issues-oriented radio programs. He made several guest appearances on local television shows around the country as well. In 1967, Lyndow turned Frontline and Spearhead Press over to his close associate, Robert Throwyn and retired. He died at his home in Costa Rica in 1975.

George Lyndow almost single-handedly kept the flame of fascism burning in America at a time when it was considered dead and buried. He also helped foster two new aspects of fascism – Synarchism and Third Positionism – by giving them a voice. Many brave and intelligent fascists from America and beyond would have been forever silenced were it not for his efforts.

Synarchism

Synarchism (from Greek meaning “to rule together”) is a form of corporatism that has changed forms over the years and nearly faded out after World War II except for a handful of proponents who managed to breathe life back into the concept. The key problem with turning synarchism into a viable political option is its very name.

The earliest recorded use of the term “synarchy” comes from Thomas Stackhouse an English clergyman who used the word in his New History of the Holy Bible from the Beginning of the World to the Establishment of Christianity published in two folio volumes in 1737 to describe the system of Heaven. Harvard historian and sinologist John K. Fairbank also used the word synarchism in his 1953 book Trade and Diplomacy on the China Coast: The Opening of the Treaty Ports, 1842-1854 and in later writings, to describe the mechanisms of government under the late Qing dynasty in China. Fairbank defined synarchy as a form of rule that co-opts existing elites and powers, bringing them into the system and legitimizing them through a schedule of rituals and tributes that gave them a stake in the Chinese regime and neutralized any risk that they might rebel against the monarchy.

The most substantive early use of synarchy comes from the writings of Alexandre Saint-Yves d'Alveydre (1842-1909), who used the term in his 1882 book La France Vraie. St Yves considered the medieval Knights Templars to be ultimate synarchists of their time and consequently drew on Templar ideals when formulating his ideas. Alarmed by the emergence of anarchist movements, Saint-Yves, an occultist, elaborated a political-theological formula which he believed would lead to a harmonious society by viewing it as an organic unity. He advocated overcoming social differentiation and hierarchy through co-operation between social classes which would transcend conflict: Synarchy, as opposed to anarchy. Specifically, Saint-Yves envisioned a European society with a government composed of three councils, representing economic power, judicial power, and the scientific sector. The structure would be bound together by a metaphysical chamber. In this form of synarchy, political power effectively rested with secret or, esoteric societies composed of oracles. An elite of enlightened initiates would rule from behind the scenes and insure synarchy no matter which political party held power in a state or even what political system that state has. Saint-Yves believed spiritually superior earthly elite would use the oracles to communicate with an ethereal elite. He himself claimed that he was in touch with these beings, and that they actually gave him the principles of synarchy.
Saint-Yves' successor, Gerard Vincent Encausse “Papus,” founded the Saint-Yves School of Occult Sciences, and began a recruiting drive for a secret society, which he called the Synarchy Government. In his 1894 book Anarchie, Indolence and Synarchie, Papus spelled out an ambitious scheme to recruit all of the leaders of industry, commerce, finance, the military, and academia, to a single force, aimed at destroying the anarchist movement. Both Saint-Yves and Papus envisioned a global Synarchist empire, divided into five geographic areas: 1. the British Empire; 2. Euro-Africa; 3. Eurasia; 4. Pan-America; 5. Asia.

Lyndon LaRouche, leader of a controversial movement on the fringe of American politics, has conjured up a conspiracy theory of synarchy based upon the ideas of Saint-Yves/Papus. He claims that synarchism is an international movement born after the Versailles Treaty, which was financed and directed by financial groups belonging to the top international banking community. Its aim is essentially to overthrow the parliamentary regimes which are considered insufficiently devoted to the interests of the synarchists and substitute them with authoritarian regimes that are more easily controlled. This group installed fascist regimes throughout Europe during the Great Depression in an effort to maintain world order and prevent the repudiation of international debts. LaRouche claims U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney as a modern “synarchist", and claims that “synarchists” have “a scheme for replacing regular military forces of nations, by private armies in the footsteps of a privately financed international Waffen-SS-like scheme, a force deployed by leading financier institutions, such as the multi-billions funding by the U.S. Treasury, of Cheney's Halliburton gang.”

However, there is another, far less mystical version of synarchy as well. Impressed with Saint-Yves' political concept but not buying the esoteric feature, French Catholic philosopher and military strategist Dupont D’Ivry (1839-1915) looked to rescue synarchy from the occultists and turn it into a practical political force. D'Ivry, a veteran of the Franco-Prussian War viewed with trepidation France’s unraveling as a result of the conflict and feared a future armed clash would bring about a repeat of the Paris Commune on a larger scale. His 1878 book, War and Uprising explored these themes. To more closely knit French society together, D’Ivry advocated Saint-Yves’ ideas of a congruous, organic society which overcomes its class differences through co-operation. However, D’Ivry’s synarchy would accomplish this through a re-organized state and economic structure. Borrowing a pinch from Otto von Bismarck’s Welfare State, a sample of Pope Leo XIII papal encyclical Rerum Novarum, a taste of American Henry George’s Single Tax theory and a helping of syndicalism, some ideas from Hegel, the American Revolution, mercantilism and the Medieval Guild system, D'Ivry brewed a heady new stew of synarchy that gave every strata of society a stake in the synarchist republic. Using the human body as a metaphor for the organic society of synarchism, D'Ivry noted that members of a society are like organs of a living body. They cannot live outside society and within it, each performs its own function or the body dies. “A peasant is as different from a priest as the stomach is different from the liver but each is important to the overall whole,” he wrote in his 1901 manifesto for synarchism, Synarchy; The New Social Contract. At the center of the syrarchic body is the biological family which functions as a micro of the macro and the state, which functions as the brain.

Surprisingly, Dupont D’Ivry and his version of synarchy is largely forgotten even though it influenced fascist and non-fascist movements around the world including Mussolini and the Italian fascists and Futurists, the National Fedayeen in Egypt, Distributism, National Socialism, Elciran Pamil’s Ergenekon movement in Turkey, Dualism, Nadir Pasdaran in Iran, The Canadian Synarchist Party, Chandra Bose, Salizar in Portugal, Oswald Mosely, Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera, Ali Lettelli in Lebanon, Arthur Thatcham in Australia, Syria’s Muhammar Faravahar, Charles Ciroan and many others.

Among those who took D’Ivry’s concepts up were the members of Mexico’s National Synarchist Union. The party was founded in May 1937 by a group of Catholic political activists led by Jose Antonio Urquiza. Borrowing heavily from Synarchy; The New Social Contract, the group published the Sinarquista Manifesto, which listed their opposition to the policies of the government of PRI and President Lazaro Cardenas. “It is absolutely necessary that an organization composed of true patriots exists,” the Manifesto declared, “an organization which works for the restoration of the fundamental rights of each citizen and the salvation of the Motherland. As opposed to the utopians who dream of a society without governors and laws, Synarchism supports a society governed by a legitimate authority, emanating from the free democratic activity of the people, that truly guarantees the social order within all find true happiness.” In addition to D’Ivry’s ideas, the ideology of the Mexican Sinarquistas was rooted in conservative Catholic social thinking of the 1920s and ‘30s and based heavily on the synarchism articulated by D’Ivry. It stressed social co-operation as opposed to the class conflict of socialism, and hierarchy and respect for authority as opposed to liberalism. In the context of Mexican politics, this meant opposition to the centralist, semi-socialist and anti-clerical policies of the PRI regime.

The Mexican Sinarquistas stirred fears of fascism on the American doorstep and U.S. Intelligence analysts kept a watchful eye on the movement during World War II. In a declassified U.S. report dated April 22, 1942, Raleigh A. Gibson, First Secretary of the U.S. Embassy in Mexico, sent the U.S. Secretary of State an English translation of an editorial from El Popular, the newspaper of the Confederation of Mexican Workers, published on April 21, 1942. It reads in part as follows:

The French sinarquistas rushed into furious strife against French and European democracy; those of Mexico organized to combat Mexican and continental democracy. The French sinarquistas were adopted by Abetz, the Ambassador of Hitler in France; the Mexican sinarquistas were recruited, were given a name, were educated and directed by Nazi agents in Mexico and by Falange directors who are working illegally among us. And this is so apparent, so conclusive, that it eliminates the need of concrete proofs of the organic connection between them. The fundamental proof is that sinarquism is not a unique and exclusive Mexican product, as its leaders untruthfully argue. That Sinarquism, even bearing the identical name, does exist in other parts of the world and is an international movement formed by those who are under the supreme orders of Hitler.

In 1946 the movement regrouped as the Popular Force Party. In 1951, however, when it was clear that the more moderate National Action Party (PAN) had become the main party of opposition to the PRI government, the Synarchist leader Juan Ignacio Padilla converted the movement to an “apolitical” one promoting conservative Catholic social doctrine, promoted through co-operatives, credit unions and Catholic trade unions. Synarchism revived as a political movement in the 1970s through the Mexican Democratic Party. The party then suffered a split in 1988, and in 1992 lost its registration as a political party. It was dissolved in 1996. There are now two organizations, both calling themselves the Uniacional Sinarquista. One has an apparently right-wing orientation, the other is apparently left-wing, but they both have the same philosophical roots.

Because of Saint-Yves and D’Ivry, synarchism has a long history in France and has been at the heart of several conspiracy theories in the years after World War II. According to former OSS officer William Langer’s 1947 book Our Vichy Gamble, French industrial and banking interests had, “even before the war turned to Nazi Germany and looked to Hitler as the savior of Europe from Communism ...These people were as good fascists as any in Europe... Many of them had extensive and intimate business relations with German interests and were still dreaming of a new system of ‘synarchy,’ which meant government of Europe on fascist principles by an international brotherhood of financiers and industrialists.” This view was originally based on the discovery of a document called Pacte Synarchique following the death of Jean Coutrot, former member of the Groupe X-Crise group, in May 15, 1941. According to this confused document, a Mouvement Synarchique d'Empire had been founded in 1922, with the aim of abolishing parliamentary government and replacing it with synarchy. This has lead to the belief that La Cagoule (from cagoulards, the “hooded ones”) was the armed branch of French synarchism, and that some important members of the Vichy Regime such as Pierre Pucheu, Jacques Barnaud, Gabriel Le Roy Ladurie, Jacques Benoist-Méchin, Yves Bouthillier, François Lehideux or Henry Du Moulin de Labarthète were synarchists. An investigation was in fact ordered by the Vichy government, leading to the Rapport Chavin but no evidence for the existence of the Mouvement Synarchiste d'Empire was found. Most of the presumed synarchists were either associated with the Banque Worms or with Groupe X-Crise and were close to Admiral François Darlan. This also led to the belief that synarchists had engineered the military defeat of France for the profit of Banque Worms. Historian Annie Lacroiz-Riz wrote a 2006 book on this subject, titled Le choix de la défaite : Les élites françaises dans les années 1930 (The Choice of Defeat: the French elites in the 1930s). These theories have been dismissed as a “work of a paranoid imagination which wove together the histories of three disparate groups of activists, creating a conspiracy among them where none existed.” In fact, some historians suspect that the Pacte Synarchique was a hoax created by some members of La Cagoule to weaken Darlan and his technocrats and that the Movement Synarchique d’Empire never existed. According to this view, the Vichy regime would have found the conspiracy theories about synarchy convenient to justify the repression of secret societies such as freemasonry, and thus did not bother to dispel the rumors concerning synarchy.

Even though a U.S. military intelligence report, dated July 27, 1944, from the military attaché in Algiers, warned of synarchist penetration of the upper echelons of the Free French government of Gen. Charles de Gaulle, headquartered in Algeria, synarchy never emerged in France. In fact, after World War II, fascism lay in ruins both physically and philosophically as the world narrowed down to a battle of two opposing ideologies: Communism and Capitalism.

However, in the 1950s, a synarchist remnant slowly emerged from the ashes from the surprising locale of the United States. Spenglarian American philosopher Francis Parker Yockey (1917 –1960) sparked the re-emergence with his classic 1948 book Imperium. South African-born American philosopher Charles Ciroan (1930-2002) proved a direct descendent of Dupont D'Ivry with his inspiring and strongly synarchist tomes The Origins of Destiny (1958) and Heed the Thunder (1962). Other American synarchists included journalist/publisher Robert Thorwyn and soldier/activist Theodore Andricks. Argentina produced writer Orazio Zumez, from Ireland came guerilla leader Ronan O’Gara and Norway had Steinar Arneesen. Several synarchist political parties have been established and at least one glossy magazine, New Zeland’s Outlook, has a synarchist point of view.

The idea endures.

Charles Ciroan, father of Synarchism

Charles Artimus Ciroan (1920-2002) was a writer, philosopher and teacher. He was the foremost proponent of a post-World War II form of fascism called Synarchism which combined elements of corporatism with Third Position foreign policy.

He was born in Pretoria, South Africa the son of a Belgian geologist father and an American mother. After serving in the South African Army, Ciroan migrated to the United States to study international law at Georgetown University. Although he was against the conflict, when the U.S. entered World War II, Ciroan volunteered for duty and was assigned to the Office of Strategic Services (forerunner of the CIA) and made a Field Intelligence Officer. His position had him conduct “first contact” field interrogations of enemy soldiers and officers, analyze the information he culled and write reports for Army Intelligence. He served in North Africa, Italy and in France.

After the war, Ciroan was asked to join the American effort to prosecute Nazis for war crimes. Instead, he went to work for Oskar Manderscheid’s group which was organized to defend the accused. This stunned those whom Ciroan had worked for because he was considered a superb officer and intelligence operative who could have had a substantial career in the post-war CIA. But Ciroan not only opposed the trials but felt that the U.S. was duplicitous in war crimes of its own (Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, among others) and lacked the moral authority to stand in judgment of the vanquished.

Ciroan was not a Nazi, but, like many in the 1930s, he had admired Mussolini’s corporate state. He arrived at his sympathy for fascism through Nietzsche, American philosopher William James, Catholic Distributism and Alexandre Saint-Yves d'Alveydre’s ideas about Synarchy.

His principled stand against post-war U.S. policy hurt Ciroan’s career hopes and put him under both CIA and FBI surveillance from 1945 to 1973. An anti-communist, he tried to join Sen. Joseph McCarthy’s legal team as an investigator but was turned down for his link to Manderscheid and the Nazi defense team. He ultimately carved out a career in academia from the early 1950s to the mid-1980s.

Ciroan scorned democracy as promoting a heard mentality that aimed at the lowest common denominator and creating instability. He was also an elitist who realized that men naturally organize themselves in hierarchies. Although he had come to admire capitalism’s ability to deliver the goods, he saw it as more revolutionary than communism and totally destructive of sound traditions.

This distrust of democratic capitalism led him to develop Synarchism. Synarchism can best be described as a pragmatic form of corporatism that relied on many market-driven strategies as well as a management approach known as Telesis, defined as an intelligent planning of the means to achieve a desired end. Synarchism rejected the imperialism and militarism which so characterized interwar fascism. It also sought to steer a third way between the either/or of Soviet communism and American state capitalism in the Cold War era. Naturally, both these ideas were highly controversial and well outside the mainstream of American political thought in the 1950s. However, from the mid 1950s to the early 1960s, he did find a considerable audience of devoted students who would later attribute Ciroan to having a profound influence upon them. This influence was surprisingly broad and included members of the New Left as well many right-wingers as well.

In addition to hundreds of articles on a wide variety of subjects, Ciroan published several books which incorporated Synarchism in their themes. His first book, the scholarly Monarchy, Empire and Republic was published by the mainstream Beacon Books in 1955. Subsequent books, The Origins of Destiny (1958) and Heed the Thunder (1962) which were less academic and more overt in their examination of fascism and synarchy, were published by American fascist George Lyndow’s Spearhead Press. His books, while brilliant, entertaining and highly readable, were also far-rambling polemics which placed every point within the context of history and philosophy. Lyndow claimed that Ciroan helped Francis Parker Yockey pen his fascist opus Imperium. In fact, Imperium bears such a striking similarity to earlier Ciroan works that some feel he wrote it himself although Ciroan always denied it.

A devout Catholic, Ciroan married twice (his first wife, Naomi Lavan died in 1957), and fathered three children. He died of cancer at his retirement home in Florida in 2002 while working on his memoirs, which, tragically, he had yet to finish.

Many of those who have written about Charles Ciroan have put their gross ignorance of him and his beliefs on ample display. Because he was sympathetic to corpratism and helped defend Nazis at the Nuremberg trials, commentators put two and two together and came up with eighteen. Ciroan was a staunch anti-Nazi and condemned the Italian Fascists for allying themselves with him. His feelings about the Nuremberg trials were virtually the same as Sen. Robert Taft who condemned them as victor's justice in which the people who won the war were the prosecutors, the judges and the alleged victims, all at the same time. Taft condemned the trials as a violation of the most basic principles of American justice and internationally accepted standards of justice. But Ciroan went futher to note that the allies had also committed crimes during the war -- crimes of policy -- and that vetoed any moral authority they had over the Nazis. Ciroan pointed out (the charge is in his books and well substantiated) that the USSR had helped start the war and had divided Poland between it and Germany, how could it sit in judgement of the Germans who were once their allies?

As stated, his principaled stance ruined any hopes he had of a real career in American politics and government. He could have been a real boon to the anti-communist cause and McCarthy personally could have used his expertise. Ciroan could have been the head of the CIA, secretary of state or a terrific senator, but it never happened. He often said he never regretted his stand or the fallout it caused, but a trace of disappointment was always evident.