Dalle conversazioni tenute con un identitario e patriota fiammingo, vicino alle idee della terza e della quarta posizione, è scaturita un’intervista in inglese al sottoscritto postata sul suo blog, che ora andrò a pubblicare. È interessante perché si è potuto spaziare in diversi argomenti riguardanti la Lombardia, l’Italia, l’Europa e il mondo, e perché mi ha dato la possibilità di dire la mia circa alcune importanti questioni, che stanno a cuore ad ogni etnonazionalista. Di questa intervista esiste una versione in inglese ed una in olandese e io andrò a pubblicare la prima; non traduco in italiano perché credo sia abbastanza abbordabile e perché una testimonianza in lingua inglese, di tanto in tanto, ci possa stare, per raggiungere anche persone non italofone. Ringrazio sentitamente l’amico fiammingo per l’occasione datami, e per aver offerto pure una versione olandese dell’intervista che permette di raggiungere un pubblico specifico, e vi auguro una buona lettura.
[De Chinese Vrijwilliger] Interview with Paolo Sizzi
Paolo Sizzi is an ethno-nationalist from Lombardia, who is specifically interested in the anthropological and racial roots of his people, without avoiding confrontation with recent history and current political circumstances. He rose to fame on a national level because of his YouTube videos as the founder of the Movimento Nazionalista Lombardo and by his writings on his blog (https://ilsizzi.wordpress.com/) and on social media, often causing a lot of controversy and extreme reactions. As it goes in such a case, few arguments are given and not much attention is paid to the actual ideological content, let alone that there would be any room for nuance and clarification. This is a rendition of the interesting interview about various subjects that arose from our most recent interactions.
Dear Paolo, as most of our readers are likely not fluent in Italian and thus unfamiliar with you, could you please briefly introduce yourself?
Certainly. I’m Paolo Sizzi, thirty-four years old, from the province of Bergamo (Lombardy, Northern Italy). I became very vaguely famous on the internet because of Lombardism, Lombardian ethno-nationalism, which resulted in two different movements: the Movimento Nazionalista Lombardo (Lombardian Nationalist Movement) and Grande Lombardia (Greater Lombardy). I am not a separatist, but I propose a radical ethno-federal reform of the Italic historical area. Ethnic and historical Lombardy coincides with the whole of northern Italy, in particular with its western half. I also consider myself a ‘raciologist’, as a great lover of physical anthropology and population genetics: human races exist, they are not a social construct.
Do you as a Lombardian and an Italian identify more with your region’s Germanic heritage, or is the larger entity of Italy and its Roman heritage more important?
Let’s say that the Germanic legacy of Lombardy is marginal: what matters most is the Gallo-Romance identity, therefore Celts/Italics and Romans. However, I do not neglect the Lombard legacy, which left its name to our land; Ostrogoths, Lombards, Franks, German settlers of the Middle Ages (see Holy Roman Empire) gave a fundamental impulse to Central and Northern Italy, although they left little from an ethnic point of view. We are the link between Central and Mediterranean Europe.
Most current nationalist movements also have roots in 19th century romanticism. Is this also the case with Lombard nationalism?
I can say that Lombardian nationalism (a very recent phenomenon, I would almost say that Lombardism and the concept of ‘Greater Lombardy’ are born with my thought, but I’m not so presumptuous because there are several Lombardist movements, although formed by people I know) originates from two strands: the völkisch nationalism born in Central Germanic Europe between the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and Padanism of the 90s of the Northern League (Lega Lombarda/Lega Nord). I have never been a leghista, but some scholars of that area have certainly inspired me as far as Lombardism is concerned, together with the ethno-nationalist thought of Blut und Boden.
Can Lombardism have a wide appeal to the public?
I think that Lombardism is the correct answer to the need for identity that today shakes the consciences of all Lombardians of iron will. On the other hand, the history of Lombardy is not independentist in an anti-Italian sense, so the risk is that people can perceive this ideology as too radical (even if not separatist), making it difficult to take root. In any case I am absolutely certain about the goodness of this battle, because globalism can only be defeated with a strong thought that does not bow to the imperialistic blackmail.
Which philosophers and political thinkers have influenced your views?
I would like to mention thinkers such as Jean Thiriart, Alain de Benoist, Guillaume Faye, the GRECE, Jean Raspail, Dragos Kalajic, Dominique Venner and, in the northern Italian area, little-known scholars such as Federico Prati, Silvano Lorenzoni, Gualtiero Ciola, Luca Leonello Rimbotti, Gilberto Oneto, who treaty about ethno-nationalism; I would also mention other Italian writers like Adriano Romualdi and Giorgio Locchi, in particular because of their commitment in the Indo-European and Roman context. Being passionate about physical anthropology, I could finally cite racial scholars such as Hans F.K. Günther, Carleton Coon, Renato Biasutti, Bertil Lundman, Egon F. von Eickstedt, Joseph Deniker and others, because race and ethnicity always have a biological basis.
Blut und Boden is the concept of the natural and rightful connection of a people with its land, contrary to the currently predominant ideas of economic globalism, spiritual universalism, racial miscegenation and cultural nomadism. Everyone knows this concept from its national-socialist appliance to agrarian politics, but its roots reach further back, if I’m not mistaken?
Blut und Boden is a concept that originates from German romanticism and goes back to Herder for example, but rose to ideology at the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, when various völkisch movements were born in the Germanic area, from which national-socialism would rise. As I see it, however, ‘blood and soil’ (‘sangh e soeu’ in Lombard language) is a sacred binomial that has its roots in the Teutonic Middle Ages, in the age of chivalry, when the nobility of a man was founded on important spiritual values, but also based on family lineage and land ownership. The warrior aristocracy, in short. Therefore, people like Darré (or Himmler) referred to German romanticism, but in the recovery of rural virtues we can glimpse the return of the medieval past, in which the Nordic nobility was very important (just think of the Lombards, for Italy).
‘Race’ is a term that is often substituted for ‘culture’ in the current political rhetoric. Even amongst those who are critical of political correctness, race is mostly a subject that is not to be openly discussed, or at least not considered relevant. Can human races still be studied in a serious and non-political anthropological manner?
Unfortunately today the racial argument is very scabrous: anti-racism and anti-fascism actively oppose all those who want to study the issue freely, without ideological blinders. Moreover, the debate has given birth to neo-marxist cultural anthropology, which reduces race to a mere social and/or cultural construct. In spite of this, race is evidently a biological reality (see physical anthropology and genetics). Today, ‘race’ has become an outlawed term, but we must however strive to do justice to the subject, which deserves thorough study, deep respect and truth. Raciology has nothing to do with racism or supremacism, so any prejudice against it is the result of ignorance and stupidity. Man is an animal, and animals have races, so the issue seems clear to me. Blood without spirit is nothing, we agree, but identity is first of all biological.
What is your view on religion?
I am a layman, I am not a believer, and I do not think I need a religion to defend a traditional and identitary point of view. However, I do recognize the importance of the rediscovery and protection of the pagan roots of Europe, which tell us a lot about our ancestors and represent an inestimable cultural and spiritual heritage that is certainly to be valued. Consequently, I am very critical of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, being Semitic foreign bodies that have been introduced into Europe by allogenous elements. Of course, two thousand years of Christian Europe are not canceled, but I sincerely do not recognize myself in a religion that is but a heresy of Judaism, that worships the same god of Jews and Muslims and has made way for itself, in Europe and elsewhere, by destroying and demonizing the traditional cults of our fathers. Moreover, I find the Christian doctrine irreconcilable with a strong völkisch thought: one either follows the gospel or places the homeland at the center of everything.
What is your view on fascism?
I’m not a fascist, but I’m smart enough not to reduce an ideology that is fundamental in the political landscape of the twentieth century, to dictatorship, violence, war and colonialism. Fascism was an extraordinary laboratory of ideas and thoughts, a fundamental experience in the contemporary history of Italy and Europe, and even though I don’t share its idea of the nation, I recognize the complexity of a social and national manifesto that has marked Italian – and not only Italian – politics. Sansepolcrism and the Social Republic say a lot about the true nature of fascism, and about the experience of those who lived it intensely. Fascism was patriotic socialism and, as nazism and communism, has its roots in revolutionary and Jacobin ideologies, understood as an exaltation of people, country, nation. We could say that fascism has straightened the 1789 throw, avoiding progressive degenerations.
Many current conservative and rightist politicians (or ‘populists’ or ‘right-extremists’ as they are often referred to in the media), tend to stress the partly leftist roots of fascism and all associated movements during the Interbellum. Do you think this is a correct assumption?
I believe that highlighting the socialist nature of fascism is correct, because it was not an instrument of the great capital. The right is usually associated with the rich, the reactionaries, the conservatives, the parasites almost, while the left – In theory – should fight for the people and their rights. But I avoid speaking of right and left, because I prefer blood, soil and spirit; notwithstanding that today the mortal enemy is not a non-existent Bolshevik danger, but globalism, and therefore the business capacity of America, its imperialism, unipolarity, the destruction of identities in the name of a global demon, namely the god of money. Social, national, ethno-federal: for me these three words are essential to address the Italian political landscape.
Money, greed, globalism and imperialism seem to be different aspects of the same phenomenon: capitalism. According to German sociologist Max Weber, the true origins of capitalism lie in protestantism, while historians usually assert that capitalism was based on the flourishing of mercantile city-states in Italy and the Low Lands, later imitated and developed in England through industrial innovation, from where it was exported throughout Europe, its colonies and eventually the whole world. Others still attribute the creation and conservation of the capitalist system to the Jews, who are traditionally known as money-lenders and usurers. What is your take on this?
I believe that capitalism is fundamentally a contemporary phenomenon, clearly Anglo-Saxon, and therefore deeply affected by the mentality of the Reformation. Of course, it is a phenomenon that has taken root in the West, and it is here that the other phenomena mentioned are manifested: the marked Jewish character of high finance is due to the medieval past (prohibition of money lending for Christians). For centuries, Central and Northern Italy have been much richer than the South due to their strong municipal identity. The Lombardians have been known throughout Europe as wealthy businessmen, bankers and merchants (think of Lombard Street in London, where “Lombard” has almost become synonymous with “banker” or “business owner”). This phenomenon has a lot in common with the merchants of Flanders, who followed a similar path. (The analogies between the Lombardians and the Flemish are really very impressive.) However, I believe that, as we know it today, capitalism is a socio-economic and cultural manifestation, distinctly Anglo-Saxon (even Dutch, originally), so much so that it became the ideology par excellence of the United States, emblematic of their dirty imperialist policies. Note the fundamental role of Industrial Revolution, which broke out in England.
One Italian philosopher that has been – I will not say ‘influential’, but definitely discussed and analyzed (over)extensively during the past decade amongst the heirs of the New Right (I’m thinking of the alt-right and eurasianist movements in particular) is Julius Evola. Is this attention in proportion to the meaning of Evola as a philosopher?
Julius Evola is undoubtedly one of the most influential authors of this so-called ‘area’, especially with regards to the neofascist trend. I agree that he is overrated by people belonging to these currents, also because he was not a fascist, but rather an elitist reactionary, much studied by those who love to intersect politics with metaphysics and the sacred. Philosopher? It may be, but I do not share his views on spiritual racism, since ‘race’ is above all a biological concept. Even the elitist question I feel it is not compatible with an ethno-nationalist policy, because it neglects the people and the blood to venture into an esoteric realm for the chosen few. I think that Evola is, like René Guénon for example, surmounted today by the need to place the emphasis on blood and soil, precisely in order to defend unconditionally the most precious good we have, without neofascist or spiritualizing ideological trivializations: our ethnic and racial identity.
At the height of the Cold War, especially during the 60s, 70s and 80s (the so-called ‘Anni di Piombo’), Italy was one of the main fields of action for the infamous Operation Gladio, a violent paramilitary war between neofascist/neonazi and communist/anarchist factions, orchestrated by NATO, the CIA and domestic secret services in Europa. There is still a lot of speculation about this operation and its dubious connections with police, military and organized crime. Even if the existence of the Gladio network has been exposed and admitted afterwards, clear information about its members, actions and motives remain (deliberately) shrouded in mystery. Is the issue still a subject of debate and/or historical study in Italy?
The so-called ‘Anni di Piombo’ or ‘Years of Lead’ are still a topic in Italy, because the clash between reds and blacks, communists and fascists, left and right, … remains exciting, even if it is in my opinion useless in current times. These events, with their political and international terrorism, belong to the mysteries of Italy, also because they suggest a mixture of mafia, freemasonry, extremism on both sides, crime, the Vatican, … This could easily be the plot for a novel. In those years, Italy was the ‘privileged’ scene in Europe, both because of the fascist heritage and because it had the strongest communist party on a national level in the West. Some neofascist circles became ideally suited for American interference and, vice versa, the Soviet Union could count on a great national platform (as if ‘communism’ even meant anything in this context). However, there is a lack of awareness of what the ‘strategy of tension’ was, and the responsibilities of NATO and the US are put in the background, hidden by the clash between the extreme right and the extreme left, and by the corruption of the almighty political faction of that time, the Christian-democracy (the main ally of the Western Block).
To me as a Flemish Belgian, who Is used to a party-political system of traditionally Catholics, socialists and liberals (along with a few more recent green, nationalist and neo-marxist parties), the Italian political theatre seems very confusing, with an enormous number of parties, frequent mergers and separations, often blurred lines between ‘rightist’ and ‘leftist’ ideologies, etc. What could be the reason for this extremely divided political lay-out?
I believe that this confusion reflects the nature of Italy, a heterogeneous, composite, ‘multi-ethnic’ country, with a rich history of regional diversity and municipal pride. This is why I am a federalist: because in Italy, we need cohesion, but also and above all the preservation of the main ethno-regional identities. We also need to avoid wasting any more time with old, useless parties – right or left – that are useless to the identitarian cause. The Italian state is very young, and its organization is chaotic and confusing, partly because it is centralized and centered on contemporary Rome, which is a disaster, just like the Italian South.
According to you, is the demographic transition that is being forced upon Western Europe through the mass import of mostly Islamic people still reversible?
I’m afraid not. Western Europe is passed off. It has been killed by its own suicide sons, and in areas like England, France, Benelux, Germany and Sweden, the future will be even worse.
A society is conquered from the outside only if it is already corrupted on the inside. Perhaps, the most peripheral areas may be saved, the areas that are based on solid traditional values, but if I think that in Italy itself there is an indigenous population decline, there is little to be quiet. A general awakening is urgently needed, lest we lose our identities altogether and let die a millenarian European civilization that would lose all meaning without Europeans. If we want to save ourselves, we must look to Western Eurasia, cut the ties to the US, promote true sovereignty for true peoples, and recover the lost lifestyle that includes agriculture, livestock, outdoor life, nature, frugality, in short: community and communitarianism. We cannot go back to the Middle Ages, but we can certainly try to reconcile identity and tradition with development, ecology, modernity and (healthy) technological and scientific innovations. This is of course completely contrary to perverse ganglia of the capitalist system.