[Aesthetic]

This topic for me is very unrefined, but I still want to throw some things out there and see if anyone wants to help me a little. I am very much ignorant when it comes to philosophic writings on Fascism, but I wanted to try to compare what I have learned and heard (mostly through PoFo) and contrast it with my thoughts and feelings, and ask you all to offer some opinions on whether I am misinformed on fascist-related things or if there are certain things I could read to directly address my questions. I'll do it in a simple Pro/Con list, and feel free to correct and suggest anything that comes to mind! This is really an exploratory exercise.

"Pro-Fascism" aka "Things that harmonize with my thoughts," etc.

- In my thoughts and readings about the idea of 'rights' and the like, I am consistently more attracted to the arguments that provide reasoning that 'rights' as we know them do not exist. Rights are merely convenient names for power relations, and the language of rights is something that is used as a political tool. How can they be universal when they flex based on the time and technology (suddenly there is talk of a "right to internet" or "right to heating oil."

- I think that it is important for a community to be anchored around principles. This sometimes seems to align with the fascist idea of the state as a body to be revered; it acts as a unifying force in all citizen's lives.

- I don't like libertarianism very much (though I used to be one many moons ago, don't tell anyone). At the same time, I am not quite sure that utopian goals on the left are practical enough to devote time to them. The genie of trade, so to speak, is out of the bottle. Corporatist policy seems to mediate these two trends in a sort of third way that prevents capitalist excess while still allowing for trade. I also know theres something called (maybe) producerism (I think), not sure if that's similar or related. I'm also a big fan of autarky and self-sufficiency.

- I think that government should be a respectable profession, and should be scathing policed for corruption. I think it's disgusting that in the U.S. government is associated with sloth and incompetence.

- I really like a lot of what Nietzsche has to say. Not sure if any of you are fans, but just thought I'd throw that out there. This leads into the next point...

- "only as an aesthetic phenomenon that existence and the world are eter­nally justified" (Birth of Tragedy). My inner struggle with things like determinism and free will has led me to conclusions that would seem to embrace the aesthetic underpinnings of fascism (at least from my view of the tip of the iceberg, so to speak).

- I care a lot about the environment. I think government power is probably the only reasonable way to deal with problems like this.

- There are some goals that are worth sacrifice. One I've brought up recently is space exploration and colonization; I think that this imperative is more important than nearly anything else in many ways. It's somewhat consequentialist in thought, but when a meteor strikes it won't matter if we've liberated anyone or not, because life will be over for a very long time.

"Not so hot on Fascism" points

- I don't personally feel identified with my race/ethnicity. I can trace family history from some European countries, but I don't feel particularly connected with them. Ditto goes for the U.S., if anything I just get pissed off when I read about things like the trail of tears. So I don't know if I have much grounding to feel a 'nationalist sentiment' or what have you.

- In that line of thought, I tend to be fairly cosmopolitan. People don't choose to be born in a certain place, or in poverty or wealth. I don't see how claims of meritocracy can ignore this problem logically.

- Not as keen on militarism and the like. In the U.S. at least, we waste tons of money on military spending for imperialist idiocy.

- Concerned about the obvious potential for disintegration into totalitarianism (see: V for Vendetta, 1984, etc. etc.).

Thanks for reading all that, and I welcome any thoughts (from fascists, libertarians, anyone really).

[starman2003]

I like much of what you posted. I'm cosmopolitan and not, in the end, nationalistic although a future movement here inevitably must appeal to a kind of American nationalism--as opposed to traditional american values--to gain enough support. Ultimately I'd like to see a unified world--as opposed to self sufficiency, which goes with nationalism. As for militarism, look at Alexander the Great. He wanted to erase national divisions and create a united world. That would be a great way to make progress in space; we'd all be mobilized for that common goal instead of engaging in international rivalry, in the process wasting enormous resources in arms buildups. But face it, in the real world force will be essential, to some extent, to produce unity.

[Preston Cole]

- Not as keen on militarism and the like. In the U.S. at least, we waste tons of money on military spending for imperialist idiocy.

Yes, there's a difference between being militaristic, which you have to combine with a sort of isolationist nationalism to be fascist, and building up your military to bring democracy to the world. That's not militarism; it's just showing off. To be militarist, you need to organize society along military lines, put an emphasis on militaristic values and be ready to die for your country.

- Concerned about the obvious potential for disintegration into totalitarianism (see: V for Vendetta, 1984, etc. etc.).

Yeah... those works are a joke. Fiction tends to exaggerate things to make a political point (in this case, that fascism is BAD *oh no here come the Antifa* ). I doubt you can compare Fascist Norsefire-led Britain or Ingsoc with any fascist or communist dictatorship that ever existed. Those are works of fiction that need to demonize fascism in a horrible way in order to support liberal democracy. I'm actually writing a pro-Fascist comic book, myself, where liberalism degenerates into hippie-like pacifism and a worldwide Fascist revolution sweeps the people's minds. Again, I need to exaggerate the malignancy of one political ideology in order to support another.

I'd suggest these works to get you more acquainted with Fascism:

- The Doctrine of Fascism by Benito Mussolini (canonical reading, you can find in this forum's Dodgy Dossier subforum)
- The Futurist Manifesto by F.T. Marinetti (it'll help you understand Fascism's militarist origins)
- See this thread; Fasces made a lot good suggestions.
- Read any of Oswald Mosley's works; he's the second most important Fascist figure after Mussolini, if you ignore Hitler.
- And, last but not least, this site is a wonderful source for Nationalist and Fascist books.

[Traianus]

To add to Mr. Preston's books.

# The "Roger" series.
The Nature of Fascism - Roger Griffin
Modernism and Fascism - Roger Griffin
International Fascism: Theories, Causes and the New Consensus - Roger Griffin
Fascism, Totalitarianism, and Political Religion - Roger Griffin

# The political doctrine of fascism - Alfredo Rocco
# Against Democracy and Equality: The European New Right - Tomislav Sunic

- I don't personally feel identified with my race/ethnicity. I can trace family history from some European countries, but I don't feel particularly connected with them. Ditto goes for the U.S., if anything I just get pissed off when I read about things like the trail of tears. So I don't know if I have much grounding to feel a 'nationalist sentiment' or what have you.

A few of the modern fascist/wholist or other authoritarian movements seem to be trying to shed themselves of the Blut und Boden ideology, but I think for most it is not much more than a facade, to attract a more moderate crowd.

- Not as keen on militarism and the like. In the U.S. at least, we waste tons of money on military spending for imperialist idiocy.

Compatible with the mosleyite "Britons fight for Britain alone", i.e. not getting involved in ridiculous interventionist wars.

[telluro]

The racist element of Fascism was itself mostly a facade, an attempt to give a modernist, scientific shade to Fascism's conservative identitarian elements.

[Potemkin]

The racist element of Fascism was itself mostly a facade, an attempt to give a modernist, scientific shade to Fascism's conservative identitarian elements.

Not for the Nazis, it wasn't.

[Preston Cole]

The racist element of Fascism was itself mostly a facade, an attempt to give a modernist, scientific shade to Fascism's conservative identitarian elements.

I'd say the modernism of fascist movements was given by their Darwinist, militarist and, in some cases, Futurist streaks.

[Aesthetic]

I like much of what you posted. I'm cosmopolitan and not, in the end, nationalistic although a future movement here inevitably must appeal to a kind of American nationalism--as opposed to traditional american values--to gain enough support.

This, at first glance, does make sense to me. American culture would need to be reinvented, so to speak, in order to gain enough power and drive to make real and radical change.

Ultimately I'd like to see a unified world--as opposed to self sufficiency, which goes with nationalism.

My thoughts on this are a little less clear. A lot of my feelings about self-sufficiency relate to my thoughts on environmentalism. I don't think, that in my ideal world, it would be states that are self-sufficient: rather, organization that recognizes limits and divisons of ecosystems and biomes would be more self-sufficient. That is, people who live in biomes make a significant part of there diet, production etc. with the natural resources around them. I don't think this is impossible in a world-state, if anything it's probably easier because competition that drives over-collection of resources would be reduced.

Yes, there's a difference between being militaristic, which you have to combine with a sort of isolationist nationalism to be fascist, and building up your military to bring democracy to the world. That's not militarism; it's just showing off. To be militarist, you need to organize society along military lines, put an emphasis on militaristic values and be ready to die for your country.

When society is organized upon military lines, does that mean there is a 'military class' or something of that nature? It sounds interesting I just want to be on the same page. It is slightly reassuring that there is, from fascists, a difference between imperialism for profit and militarism. Also, thank you for the reading suggestions, I will work through them once my work eases up.

A few of the modern fascist/wholist or other authoritarian movements seem to be trying to shed themselves of the Blut und Boden ideology, but I think for most it is not much more than a facade, to attract a more moderate crowd.

That does seem to be a significant source of division. Thank you for the additional reading materials.

[Section Leader]

This, at first glance, does make sense to me. American culture would need to be reinvented, so to speak, in order to gain enough power and drive to make real and radical change.

That's sort of what Fascism is all about. Demolishing and then rebuilding decadent societies into a new form. This stems from the fundamental Fascist belief that inactivity is death, if a society remains static and unchanging it will eventually fall into decadence and will be swept away by another society.

When society is organized upon military lines, does that mean there is a 'military class' or something of that nature?

No, the military is of course always a central component of Fascist states, but the military doesn't rule. The organisation of society along the lines of the military would entail a strictly hierachical society operating on a meritocractic basis. Today one cannot buy their way to the top of the military, they have to achieve a position through their skills and abilities, why should society be any different?

It sounds interesting I just want to be on the same page. It is slightly reassuring that there is, from fascists, a difference between imperialism for profit and militarism. Also, thank you for the reading suggestions, I will work through them once my work eases up.

Fascists are strongly against imperialistic ventures for the benefit of capital. Because in that circumstance the nation is being used by international capitalism.

[telluro]

The racist element of Fascism was itself mostly a facade, an attempt to give a modernist, scientific shade to Fascism's conservative identitarian elements.

Not for the Nazis, it wasn't.

It was. Hitler was first and foremost an extreme nationalist. His belief in race and blood was only so that he could appear to have scientific justification for nationalism, seeing as his idea of race conformed completely to his German nation. The exterminations the Nazis undertook were efforts to clean up what they saw as their national identity. The Nazis weren't racists in the same sense that White Nationalists and racialists and neo-nazis are today, for example, who would have the white race become as one nation, and who regularly decry Hitler for his small-minded nationalism, for his extermination of fellow whites or for his warmongering upon white nations.

[starman2003]

American culture would need to be reinvented, so to speak..

It'll have to be turned right on its head. Nothing could be worse than the religious/democratic/individualistic/hedonistic cesspool we have here. The challenge will be to appeal to American nationalism while in the end totally reversing american values.

[Potemkin]

The exterminations the Nazis undertook were efforts to clean up what they saw as their national identity.

Which was, for them, essentially a racial identity. The Nazis' persecution and later attempted extermination of the Jews, for example, actually harmed the interests of Germany as a nation. By any objective standards, the Nazis were more than merely extreme nationalists.

[BRITAIN_FOREVER]

[ The Nazis' persecution and later attempted extermination of the Jews, for example, actually harmed the interests of Germany as a nation. By any objective standards, the Nazis were more than merely extreme nationalists.

Many Jews were more German than the Germans. I remember talking to a holocaust survivor who didn't know what a Jew was until the nazis came to power. He had a Jewish grandparent and that was that. Nazi Germany was a country with extreme masochistic tendencies. Why Hitler had to make racial enemies when Germany undeniably had so many real traitors with in its ranks is beyond me.

[starman2003]

It's interesting that so many Germans saw things far differently. When Hitler got leave time in WWI, he got the impression that jews tended to be pacifists, pimps, slackers...They didn't care about Germany, it seemed, just their own petty interests. I can't comment on those perceptions because I didn't live in that society at the relevant time, and I don't have relevant stats. In recent years we've been conditioned by the media to automatically dismiss all criticism of jews as "anti-semitic." But look at it this way, Adolf was there what do we know? His views certainly seemed valid to his many of his countrymen, even in WWI. IIRC an anti-jew speech by Hitler so pleased his superior officers he was made a political instructor. Honestly, based on much jewish behavior here, it wouldn't be surprising if there was at least an element of truth in adolf's accusations ("jew is no german"). Many American jews seem to put jewish interests above american ones. They dominate the government to force us to back Israel regardless of the consequences to the US itself. I'm certainly not advocating racial theories. But face it, many (not all) of those people are enemies of authoritarianism/wholism and our country itself. Their power will have to be broken if decent government and priorities are to prevail.

[BRITAIN_FOREVER]

It's interesting that so many Germans saw things far differently. When Hitler got leave time in WWI, he got the impression that jews tended to be pacifists, pimps, slackers...

That's because most of the Jews away from the front at the time were like that. The Jews at the front wouldn't be instantly recognisable as Jewish for obvious reasons. And the fact that the masses saw things in a certain way while under huge economic and social pressures is no way of finding the truth.

"In recent years we've been conditioned by the media to automatically dismiss all criticism of jews as "anti-semitic.""

Criticising zionism is only described as anti-semitic in some circles. I don't think Richard Dawkins is widely portrayed as anti-semitic by the media. In any case, that comment is an irrelevance. The fact that certain criticisms of the Jews are rejected out of hand does nothing to make those criticisms any more true.

"IIRC an anti-jew speech by Hitler so pleased his superior officers he was made a political instructor."

I doubt it pleased the Jewish lieutenant who awarded him the Iron Cross.

"Adolf was there what do we know? His views certainly seemed valid to his many of his countrymen, even in WWI."

So what? The views of Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Tony Blair, Robert Mugabe and Abraham Lincoln seemed valid to many people. There were ideas circulating about the Jews in Europe that are (and were) demonstrably false. The ludicrous claims of Jewish ritual sacrifice of Christian children probably gained a wider acceptance than Hitler's ideas but it it no way makes those claims credible.

So instead of lazily following what the masses thought at a particular time, we should look at the facts. 12,000 Jews died for Germany in World War I and a higher percentage of Jews fought for Germany than any other ethnic group.



"The President of the Reich Berlin, October 3, 1932
Dear Dr. Lowenstein!

I express my cordial thanks to the Reich Association of Jewish Combat Veterans for their good wishes on my 85th birthday as well as for the gift of flowers and the Commemorative Album. I accept the book in respectful memory of those comrades from your ranks fallen for the Fatherland and will make it a part of my war library.

With comradely greetings!
(signed) Von Hindenburg"



With regard to the American Jews, I would point out that as with other minorities, it's often easy to notice that they are Jewish when they offer support for 'their particular cause'. There are plenty of people of Jewish decent who could not care less about Israel and many capitalistic minded gentiles who crawl around worshipping that state. The US government's love affair with Israel has more to do with oil than anything else.

The power of the enemies of our nations will have to be destroyed; but a jewish commie is an enemy because he's a Red, not because he's jewish. Historically jews have been barred from many professions, and so there are of course demographic trends. A high percentage of people in the arts for example are Jewish. This might mean that the opponents of nationalism in Britain in the media might include a slightly higher than average number of Jews. But even if that were true, who cares?

[starman2003]

The Jews at the front wouldn't be instantly recognisable as Jewish for obvious reasons.

Hitler and one or two others he knew had no trouble realizing one of their officers was jewish. They wouldn't salute him.

..a higher percentage of Jews fought for Germany than any other ethnic group.

Including ethnic Germans no doubt. I agree we should look at the facts. Ritual sacrifice of children may be an old myth but AFAIK the facts don't show they were less likely to be pimps, slackers and swindlers; they may have been more so.

The fact that certain criticisms of the Jews are rejected out of hand does nothing to make those criticisms any more true.

It certainly testifies to a sacred cow status; if anything gets in the way of truth it is allowing a certain group to be above criticism. To a considerable degree, that is true of the jews. In fact one reason we are endlessly bombarded with holocaust reminders is to make people reluctant to criticize them (and therefore get away with e.g. milking the taxpayers for Israel).

The US government's love affair with Israel has more to do with oil than anything else.

You gotta be joking mister. Israel has NO oil, the Arabs have an enormous amount, plus FAR more people. That's why NO other nation supports the jewish state like we do. It's anything but practical. The problem is, the pro-Israel lobby is extremely powerful, and has forced us to sacrifice our own interests, including oil, to benefit their favorite foreign state. In 1973 the US airlifted arms to Israel despite an oil embargo. True not all jews are responsible for the policy and some nonjews are. Nevertheless there's no doubt that the jews are the main force behind it.

[Bridgeburner]

I really like a lot of what Nietzsche has to say. Not sure if any of you are fans, but just thought I'd throw that out there. This leads into the next point...

Nietzschean-inspired philosophy is what drove the West towards relativistic moral decline.... The philosophy of living your life for the pure and unadulterated purpose of enjoyment...

[Potemkin]

Nietzschean-inspired philosophy is what drove the West towards relativistic moral decline.... The philosophy of living your life for the pure and unadulterated purpose of enjoyment...

Precisely. Nietzsche is perhaps the most un-fascist philosopher who ever lived. If any single philosopher can be said to be responsible for fascism (especially in its German anti-semitic form), then it is surely Arthur Schopenhauer - Hitler carried a copy of The World As Will and Idea in his knapsack throughout his time in the trenches in WWI, and read it voraciously.

[Amanita]

Nietzsche was more of a harbinger of things to come than an advocator of some philosophy. He was definitely not a relativist; at least not in any matter you are probably understanding it. The closest realisation of Nietzsche's "philosophy", or consequence thereof, is the SS.

[Potemkin]

Nietzsche was more of a harbinger of things to come than an advocator of some philosophy. He was definitely not a relativist; at least not in any matter you are probably understanding it.

Nietzsche was a perspectivist rather than a relativist.

The closest realisation of Nietzsche's "philosophy", or consequence thereof, is the SS.

The Nazi concept of the 'superman' is only tangentially related to the Nietzschean concept of the 'superman'.