About

Mark Dyal is a cultural anthropologist whose institutional study of Roman Ultras and extreme political socialization has blossomed into a radical, independent, and derelict study of nomadic assemblages, Statelessness, and affirmative revolution. While still relating his work to contemporary Rome, Dr. Dyal examines how phenomena such as extreme politics, habitualized violence, and physiological transformation promote the creation of intentional communities and spaces of dereliction against the liberal State. He is currently conducting field-work in southern Appalachia that focuses on local particularity and zones of conceptual and ontological autonomy, shedding new light on the limits of State-sponsored violence and terror, liberal identity politics, and Capitalist wage enslavement.

He publishes essays at Rightist and anarchist websites; papers in academic journals; and books with Arktos Media. His first book, Ultras Contra Modernity: Romans in Revolt will be published in this or another lifetime – or so it seems.

He is a founding member of ROMVLAE GENTI, a Rome-based radical collective devoted to Deleuzian empiricism and Nietzschean transvaluation of modern values and evaluation. In America, RG is a militant collective that combines military expertise with academic training to create derelict spaces. Dr. Dyal is the creator of Nietzsche Youth/Derelict Agōgē, a pedagogical and philosophical system for raising children to be the creators of a post-liberal West.

22 Comments
  1. How do you manage to survive in academia with your political views? I am a undergrad student intent on going to grad school for history, and find myself surrounded by potentially hostile students and faculty. I largely keep my views to myself (anti-egalitarian elitism, influenced by ancient and medieval thought as well as that of Nietzsche, Evola, and Heidegger) and find it to be a very difficult situation. On another note I found your essay on Counter Currents to be excellent and agree with your positions for the most part, especially about the untenability of the American project. Which I believe to be a monstrous abomination.

    • If MD studied extreme manifestations of prejudice against immigrants in Rome and didn’t write his dissertation on how “the global community must to more to help humanity heal from such hatred and racism,” the how did he get it past the committee and finally earn his doctorate?

      With the supremacy of Race, Class, and Gender infected social sciences, how could he have made progress without putting the plight of the African “Other” first? Aren’t we required to urged an ethic that embraces immigration as the cure to Western Civilization’s racist construct of the dominant culture of White privilege?

      • Part two of my rambling interview with Greg Johnson deals with my dissertation committee, but I can tell you that I was both good and lucky. I picked a research topic that itself used sources and ideas associated with the right. And I refused to negotiate (too much) on using those same sources to explain the phenomenon – especially as they were philosophical and perfectly suited to understand extreme anti-bourgeois politics. I was lucky that my committee understood enough about morality and its role in the production of knowledge to let this huge attack on modernity through the system. The one thing about anthropology that facilitated my rightist dissertation is the ‘area studies’ component. In other words, I had Italianists on my committee, who, even though horrified by the content of my dissertation, were familiar enough with Italy to know that it was legitimate; and who knew that my particular stick of dynamite better served anthropology (because it ignites on behalf of an Italian right that no one cares about) than someone else using a similar approach on American neonazis. Plus, they made legitimate attempts to understand and learn from me. In fact, my former department trumpets my work as a new way to understand local attacks on globalization and the neoliberal state. For a while I had students working in Afghanistan and Eastern Europe contacting me for ways to understand globalization from the right.

        As for immigration, I was able to discuss it simply from the perspective of my subjects – which is what anthropology is about, as long as those subjects are leftist and bourgeois. Instead of the value of immigrant labor for corporations, I gave an “objective” rationale to the cultural prices that Europeans are paying for non-white immigration. There was nothing my committee could say, really, except to understand that it was my subjects’ position and not my own. Perhaps, in the end, my professors saw some truth in what they read. None ever said so but I know that they love Italy as an Italian nation. They might not like Casapound, but they certainly understand it better because of me.

    • Ciao tutti, I think it best to respond individually to inquiries like this. If I get enough of them, perhaps we can set up a group/network through which we can strategize for academic survival and triumph.

      • Based on what you know now compared to 2010, would you make any alterations to this abstract?

        Mark W. Dyal
        PhD Student, Cultural Anthropology
        CUNY Graduate Center

        Odio Tutti (I Hate Everyone): The Limited Altruistic Co-Identification of Italian Ultras
        The Ultras, the organized and ritualized fan organizations associated with professional soccer inItaly, exhibit a broad array of aesthetic and political behaviors. Given the latter, it is surprising that many researchers have studied the Ultras primarily as an aesthetic phenomenon, while others have concentrated on either the violent aspects of their behavior or the history and development of the phenomenon in general. While focusing on the ideological and historical elements that give substance to many Ultra behaviors, this paper, part of a larger project resulting from 15 months of anthropological fieldwork in Rome, Italy, from 2006 to 2008, seeks to explain the agonistic culture of the Ultras and its promotion of extremely limited modes of altruistic co-identification.This agonistic culture, also thought of as a “culture of opposition,” has developed via knowledge of Counter-Enlightenment thinkers such as
        Friedrich Nietzsche, Julius Evola, and Georges Sorel, as well as immersion in the culture of Fascism, to produce a form of life which celebrates cultural particularity, localism, tradition, homogeneity, and protectionism as well as deep commitments to division, discrimination, and rivalry.

      • JCRO, There are a few people around. Atlanta seems to breed men (and women) like us. No need to speak publicly about it any more than that.

        Osey, I wouldn’t change the abstract, but I’ve since made the chapter that produced that paper much better. I’m negotiating with Arktos to publish a book.

  2. In part one of your Greg Johnson interview, you don’t mention Jonathan Bowden, whose online videos have done more to advance Nietzscheanism than anything else recently. Are you familiar enough with him to offer an opinion? His Credo vid. is essential, along with his podcast interview with Richard Spencer re Gen. of Morals.

    • Ciao SS(!),

      I only failed to mention Mr. Bowden in the interview because I found my way to Nietzsche long before I found the NR. Bowden’s death sent me reeling, though, because I had envisioned a lively correspondence with him on all things Nietzschean. I too love his Credo, but have yet to hear the discussion with RS on the Genealogy. I hope I can fill part of the huge void caused by Bowden’s death, and at least keep a Nietzschean spirit alive in the NR.

      • Your bio says you specialize in “racial degeneration”. Have you ever noticed on TV when the reporter is at the local army base doing a story on returning soldiers, they always pick the good looking Anglo Saxon White soldier with the darkest alien wife and mongrel kids to interview?

        Look in church magazines and you will see mostly White families highighted that include Diversity mongrel babies and grandbabies.

        The bias in MSM is toward White dysgenics. Our problem is that because of enforced race mixing through Affirmative Action and Diversity Privilege, the powerful producers of the shows are blacks and mongrels, so they show White what Whites should do- RACE MIXED UNTIL YOU ARE MIXED OUT OF EXISTENCE.

        Why aren’t the Jews race mixing themselves out of existence if it’s so good for humanity? Why do the Jews send their children to segregated private Jew schools?

        Our abdication of our duty to Whiteness makes God’s wrath grow hotter by the day. Our future horrors are worse than anything ever experienced by any race in history. White girls will know the true Race Reality through violent rape. They will all be Channon Christian.

      • NDP,

        I think you know the answers to all of your questions! If we do not get a new narrative – one that promotes our own history, glory, and well being, we will be amongst the last of our people. I am doing my part, with my work and my son. I’m glad to know others are as well.

  3. What is the future of Whiteness down there in Atlanta?

    All the news we hear seems grim. Diveristy rules the city, Diveristy shoots White girls, Diversity keeps everything dangerous and ugly, etc.

    What effect does that have on healthy Whites who can’t get away from it?

    • Ciao NJ, You’ve answered your own questions as well as I could. Atlanta proper is a cesspool, in dire need of liquidation. Those of us who are stuck here, for now, can only band together and carve out a niche of purity and ennoblement. The problem with that is the geographical distance between us. (Us being the handful of us healthy folk.) A single block that shown with defiant radiance would go a long wayin this dump. Even in “white” neighborhoods, the bourgeois form of life keeps each and all from any awareness that there is a problem beyond less frequent trips to the mall.

      In any case, its effect on me is a general devaluation of the human and a specific hatred of most men and women – not an inspiring way to approach our situation.

  4. Do the Ultras in Rome have a conscious and expressed appreciation for Roman contributions to Art, such as classical literature, church and civic buildings and monumental architecture, and paintings? Would they ever consider Florence a place of identitarian pilgrimage?

    Or are they just non educated and alcoholic bottom class thugs who justify noble and aristocratic violence against immigrants because they can pronounce the word Nietzsche?

    I don’t ask that last question sarcastically.

    • WBF,

      I’m sorry I have neglected your questions – among the best I’ve ever gotten about the Ultras and Romans.

      I will have to be brief, as dinner dishes and a two year old await.

      Some of the Ultras are of the latter kind, of course. The Curva Sud alone holds 14,000 people. Not all of these are Nietzschean. Some are boorish, but those who are politicized of the Right are quite able to discuss the cultural costs of immigration. Casapound, Forza Nuova, la Destra, and Fiamma Tricolore – to say nothing of the small local Roman variations of the Social Right – do a great job of educating the people.

      Florence would be acknowledged as a pilgrimage site for Tuscans and Americans, but not for any self-respecting Roman.

      The glory and history of Rome and a deep appreciation of its monuments and architecture are the best things in life for these Ultras and fascists.

  5. Hi Mark,

    Could you clarify your usage of the term ‘bourgeois,’ please. I believe I understand it in your work by my sense of intuition, but the term is obviously contested. Historically, of course, it is a town or city-dweller and understood as the non-noble middle-class. I ask because in current discourse, it is most often employed by the Left (mostly Marxist) whom associate themselves with the proletariat. I think, in a vaguely related sense, it shares some similarities with ordinary but more right-leaning people who might speak about “liberal elite” or “latte liberals,” etc.

    I wonder because the question might be, to which class do you belong, and to what extent there is an alternative. (For example, I like most everyone I know if “middle-class”) One might dispute maintaining ‘fixed’ or essential meaning to a term or word outside of a discourse, but as an historian by education, I tend in the direction of wanting to understand it historically. I suppose I understand it roughly in the New Right discourse, but how do you distinguish it from the meaning employed with the hegemonic leftish academy and elsewhere. Is it necessary to cut a fine line of distinction here?

    I should say I am not a Nietzschean (and perhaps it is true that Nietzsche is in a similar tug-o-war as the term bourgeois.) And whilst I refrain from using bourgeois very often except in a sort of ironic derision when talking about/to certain champions of the poor who are clearly culturally upper-class and apt to look down on poor whites. I call these people ‘faux-letariat.” And so I think the way you use the term is quite important. The attitudes about race, ‘homophobia’ and the indignation about people who unapologetically present their opinions deserves a derisive sobriquet at least.

    Some clarification on how to understand it, define it, defend it would be very much appreciated.

    Thanks,

    P

  6. Are you in contact with Doug/Tosti or any of those guys at all? I tried to friend you on FB, and I’ll try again and be sure to mention who I am this time.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s