Traditionalism vs. Fascism - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The non-democratic state: Platonism, Fascism, Theocracy, Monarchy etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14637053
You said it was an unpleasant state, not that it was necessarily a police state. The data I presented suggested that it was not an unpleasant place to live. I can't really verify the degree to which there is an overbearing police force, but Singapore is among the happiest countries in the world, so I would presume it doesn't police affairs as unpleasantly as you seem to think it does.


Considering public beatings are considered an acceptable form of punishment for crime I rather think it is as unpleasant as I think. It's true that Singapore is far from being north Korea but it's also far from being particularly traditional as well. It is far closer to a fascist state than a traditionalist one, their ruling party rejects liberal democracy and endorses third way economics and comunitarianism. They completely reject the form of traditionalism you seem to be endorsing, which looks like conservative liberalism.

If values are subjective, why do you have any values at all?


How do you not have values? Even if I tried very very hard I wouldn't be able to not have preferences.

And why would you debate with me about the validity of traditionalism if your own values aren't objective?


Why should I not defend my point of view just because I don't believe it's universal or an objective truth? Asking me this on a debate forum no less!
#14637062
Singapore is heavily influenced by Chinese traditionalism although their policies lowered the Chinese birth rate by so much that they're only about 1/3rd of the population now. The other two thirds are primarily Hindus and Malaysians. It's hard to see the city lasting in the long run once the Mandarin-speaking population is gone and the Muslims take it over.

As for it being fascist or traditionalist, it might be closer to fascist but it's pro-immigration fascist, so it doesn't mesh well with German or Japanese conceptions of fascism. Mussolini was the only "real" fascist in there of course and didn't explicitly espouse "racist" ideologies but his government didn't last long enough for us to know what it would do with immigration during peace time.
#14637068
It's a little silly for you to try and claim that Mussolini was the only real true fascist.

Singapore is heavily influenced by Chinese traditionalism


Every country on earth is influenced by it's traditions and history, that doesn't make all countries traditionalist countries.
#14637074
warsmith17 wrote:Spirit being a vague term I agree, for example I would like a revival or strengthening of the pagan spirit without necessarily having a revival of the religions. Personally I believe that the best way to do this is to capture the narrative as it recurs today. Environmentalism is the best example of this in action. My Traditionalist/Fascist/Third Positionist groups/people have views on nature that coincide in some ways with those coming into fashion.


Could you elaborate on this because I'm not quite understanding what you mean? Do you mean that there is a rising anti-immigration, anti-capitalist feeling?

It's probably due to being an American, but I don't like the idea of operating without a formal document. I know unwritten constitutions have and do function well, but the concept is rather foreign to me.


I definitely understand that. If I were an American, I would want to have a written constitution. It's similar to the fact that here in Britain, I very much support monarchy, or at the very least a dyarchy, since it is something inherent to our culture and has served a great role in conserving order as much as possible.

Your ideal society sounds very similar to the Terran Federation in Starship Troopers. Were you at all influenced by that novel? As a Brit, I tend to be more lenient towards democracy than European nationalists simply because I think that the British character couldn't adopt a centralised and strong leadership in the same way that Germany could. We couldn't get a Bismarck in Britain, that's for sure. Because of this, I do support limited suffrage, probably under the same conditions as you stated and I do support a constitution as well.

Fascism is such a broad range of ideologies (I classify it under Third Positionism), that it is difficult to say anything for sure.


It's why I started this thread simply because I have difficulty grasping the core ideas of Fascism. I've only really started looking at Fascism from a relatively unbiased position for the past few months, so a lot of its ideas are new to me. I like some of its ideas, but generally, I find Integralism to be far better suited to my traditionalist tendencies than Fascism.
#14637080
mikema63 wrote:It's true that Singapore is far from being north Korea but it's also far from being particularly traditional as well. It is far closer to a fascist state than a traditionalist one, their ruling party rejects liberal democracy and endorses third way economics and comunitarianism.


I wasn't arguing that Singapore was traditionalist, I was just stating that enforcing traditional values does not require a totalitarian government, which you yourself admit it isn't. I support third way economics and communitarianism too, by the way. Does an opposition to totalitarianism require me to be an individualist? I'm curious because both you and Hong Wu seem to think of me as that.

How do you not have values? Even if I tried very very hard I wouldn't be able to not have preferences.


I agree, but why do you have those values in particular? If there is no objective reasoning behind your values or indeed mine, why would you have those values over mine?

Why should I not defend my point of view just because I don't believe it's universal or an objective truth? Asking me this on a debate forum no less!


I'm not suggesting you shouldn't be allowed to defend yourself. I don't mean it in an antagonistic way at all. I was asking you why - if all values are effectively of the same validity - do you have the particular viewpoint you have rather than mine or any other person's viewpoint?
#14637189
warsmith17 wrote:Spirit being a vague term I agree, for example I would like a revival or strengthening of the pagan spirit without necessarily having a revival of the religions.


Here we are in the space age so why be so archaic? What is needed is a new secular ideology based on modern science, which picks up where fascism and communism left off.

I envision a type of republic where the voting franchise is based upon national service (Hence why I'm not voting until I'm further along in my military service). This national service is not to be based upon military service, though it could be an option. I envision it more as a way to create national solidarity and communal spirit while learning valuable skills. National service could be anything from national park work, to being a teachers aid, EMT, and a variety of other useful occupations. I envision this as lasting about 2 years, and could hypothetically be completed at any time. Those who do not complete it would have all rights, except voting or holding office.


It would be better to just have special schools to train the inherently brightest or best in terms of leadership ability as Plato envisaged.



Foreign Policy based around national interest/realpolitik.


In other words break the zionist lobby!! Couldn't agree more with the above but there's no hope of it without a radical transformation.

Fascism is such a broad range of ideologies (I classify it under Third Positionism), that it is difficult to say anything for sure. It's also problematic that many followers refuse to see it evolve past its first few decades, and develop a broader, more refined range of thought.


I'd prefer to see the name dumped altogether--too much historical baggage-- and too diverse or vague anyway.

mikema63 wrote
Considering public beatings are considered an acceptable form of punishment..


Public? Singapore has corporal punishment but AFAIK not in public.
#14637193
RiceNaydon wrote:It is the transcendent constant that links one generation to another and is necessary for the stability and growth of that civilisation. Every single civilisation has entered its decline and eventual fall as a result of demolishing the institutions - as well as the spiritual forces that built those institutions- that had once built it.


I disagree with this. This is not historically true I would think. Civilizations have an expiration date and if they do not reform, transform and evolve they disappear because they can no longer respond to the evolving social demands and needs, the Roman transition to Christianity ensured another 1000 years of the Roman Empire, the transition of the Axis forces to liberalism ensured the survival of these nations, the breaks with tradition vary for every era and civilization but they all include painful breaks with tradition and the advent of something new to provide a fresh motivational impetus for continued growth.

Fascism & communism failed, liberalism has failed too, we are now brewing something new, something which will render all these 19th century philosophies to an academic subject like the enlightenment, reformation, chivalry.
#14637197
noemon wrote:I disagree with this. This is not historically true I would think. Civilizations have an expiration date and if they do not reform, transform and evolve they disappear because they can no longer respond to the evolving social demands and needs, the Roman transition to Christianity ensured another 1000 years of the Roman Empire, the transition of the Axis forces to liberalism ensured the survival of these nations, the breaks with tradition vary for every era and civilization but they all include painful breaks with tradition and the advent of something new to provide a fresh motivational impetus for continued growth.

Fascism & communism failed, liberalism has failed too, we are now brewing something new, something which will render all these 19th century philosophies to an academic subject like the enlightenment, reformation, chivalry.

This is an attractive proposition but I don't think it's as correct as might appear. Materially speaking, one civilization tends to supplant another when it has a military surplus which is generally an economic surplus combined with internal cohesion. This is for example why America can supplant anyone they want to, they have the largest economic surplus and do not spend it against each other. At least not yet.

What happened with Romans and Christianity is probably that paganism failed to evolve dialectically and spiritually. Paganism was better suited to legal systems for small communities. Christianity was better suited to "due process". Paganism was also unattractive to people seeking spiritual transcendence or enlightenment since unlike Christianity, it offered little guidance on initiation and spiritual growth; if they could not follow the rites of their family, a person was left to their own devices in this area. Whereas anyone can read the bible and be an ascetic. As such, Christianity was more attractive intellectually and as a past time (through activities like pilgrimage) than paganism was.

Modernly, Christianity declines because the legalist and secular structures it created no longer need it to function and so it increasingly becomes a niche endeavor. This doesn't happen to Islam because Islamic legal structures need Islam to exist. This is all related to another post I'm going to make in the spirituality section in a bit.
#14637199
RiceNaydon wrote:It is the transcendent constant that links one generation to another and is necessary for the stability and growth of that civilisation. Every single civilisation has entered its decline and eventual fall as a result of demolishing the institutions - as well as the spiritual forces that built those institutions- that had once built it.


Tradition in the sense you are suggesting seems oriented towards maintaining continuity over time. A necessary condition for continuity is limiting the rate of social change. This is where it conflicts with the demands of capital accumulation, which are everywhere and always destructive of the existing order. Schumpeter called it creative destruction. But a little bit of creative destruction goes a long way - humans cannot adapt to constant upending change very successfully. So in the US we have millions of iPhones, while the grandchildren of the "greatest generation" live on food stamps and cook meth.
#14637204
Christianity was better suited to "due process". Paganism was also unattractive to people seeking spiritual transcendence or enlightenment since unlike Christianity


'Due process' belongs to the city-states of paganism. Christianity is Imperial and suits an Imperial government for standardization and orthodoxy, christianity helped the roman state assimilate foreign populations the importance of orthodoxy and standardization was stressed by the Ecumenical Councils convened by the Emperors which demonstrates beyond any doubt the active participation of the Empire in the chosen social policy. Also Christian asceticism developed later based on the neo-platonic tradition of meditating the ideas, magic and transcendence were also pagan motifs that christianity had to adopt to remain in tune. Imperially centralized orthodox social constructs tend to be less evolutionary advanced than political social constructs who allow for diversity of opinion and expression.
Last edited by noemon on 31 Dec 2015 15:12, edited 1 time in total.
#14637206
Sorry but I disagree with pretty much all of that. Transcendence is arguably the entire point of asceticism. Asceticism in Christianity is entirely contextual and didn't require platonism, although it probably subtly influenced it. There were also many instances where Byzantine Christian Emperors failed to get along with their Christianized neighbors and more instances where they Christianized people without conquering them, even though overall it had a peaceful impact on Europe.

For example, there's a meme on the internet that the Romans Christianized Britain in order to subjugate it; totally untrue, they were gone from the British isles for more than a century before St. Augustine showed up.

I find it kind of funny that political people are never content to let a religion just be a religion. It's always a political ideology to them.
#14637210
quetzalcoatl wrote:So in the US we have millions of iPhones, while the grandchildren of the "greatest generation" live on food stamps and cook meth.
Ah so there's a still a place for the independent, for the small businessman, for the local artisan. It will be a sad day day when people buy their Meth from Amazon.
#14637211
Do you have any christian mystics, ascetics before the christian neoplatonists? Like who? All the christian bishops were involved in rather mundane conversations for the one and only objective of finding the lowest common denominator acceptable to all for orthodoxy to cement. Orthodoxy in and of itself was the primary purpose of all christian thinkers of the early period.

Asceticism was developed after the 6th CE within an existing neoplatonic tradition in the roman empire that adopted buddhist and indian methods for good but even that was not without issue and the 7th or 8th ecumenical council had to deal with asceticism 400 years after the previous ecumenical councils had dealt with the issue of orthodoxy.
#14637213
Early Christians (the Galileans) were instrumental in the eventual triumph of Christianity over Roman paganism. The early days of un-canonized Christianity included groups like the Gnostics and Arians as well. Regardless of what it eventually morphed into, Christianity began as a loose spiritual tradition or religion and not as a political ideology.

And yes, these people were definitely ascetics. The Manichaeans and other gnostics were even vegetarian.
#14637226
All these groups were targeted and exterminated with much zealotry by the Christian Orthodox themselves.

You are arguing that Christianity brought on an evolved form of mysticism and asceticism to the pagan magicians who interacted openly with all kinds of methods and mysteries. This does not make any sense. Mysticism itself is a product of the mysteries and the superiority of the pagan mysteries to the judaic ones for example is made obvious by the superiority of pagan civilization with its theatres, stadiums, art as well as their superior scientific and astronomical advancements which had all transcended their narrow religious origins into the secular Imperial institutions(academies, university's, courts) carried on existing under an Empire that consolidated all barbarians under a single Christian identity. The uniform-ness(aka orthodoxy) of this new identity was the expressed desire of Constantine who forced them to convene.

Did you know that Constantine was keen on the Arian doctrine but when the majority of Bishops agreed against it, he ordered the execution and persecution of the Arians himself, even though he was personally tilted towards them during the debates? Constantine's Christianity had one clear purpose which is quite obvious. And what is worse is that Constantine is responsible for Christianity as we know it today directly because he personally set the questions, presided over the debate and moderated the Bishops and he was not even christian himself.

Christianity is an identity, was built to be an identity, like 'European', 'American', 'Asian', 'Muslim'. Identities are not inherently less or more scientifically or mystically advanced. These advances depend on the craftsmanship tradition of the people themselves and since christianity post-dates these traditions in the given geographical area it can not be said that christianity led to the Architectural Basilica of the Hagia Sophia for example(what christian architectural tradition? what christian mystical tradition? what christian astronomic tradition? what christian mathematical tradition? what political tradition? Tradition is a physical thing it requires physical people studying a particular, keeping records in an archive and comparing the results, it requires an academy dedicated to a particular endeavor)*, which is a product of an architectural tradition that existed without christianity. The consolidation of an identity can lead to relative advancement but this advancement is relative and needs to be examined objectively, did the advancement happen because of a seed planted by a christian tradition, or did the advancement happen because the new identity brought fresh brains from afar actively participating in the old tradition of the craft itself?

*it can be said though that christianity was an advancement for the Germanics and the Russians because by the time they adopted it, christianity carried with it the Roman secular institutions and crafts which at that point for those populations were indeed seen as being brought over by christians, but for the Roman citizens themselves it cannot be said that christianity brought to them the traditions of crafts that made Greco-Roman civilization great.
Last edited by noemon on 31 Dec 2015 19:06, edited 2 times in total.
#14637236
Yes I knew that stuff, but what later Christians did doesn't matter in the context of what early Christians did or whether Christianity was a political move and not an earnest religion, the latter seemingly being the assertion made often on this forum.
#14637239
But why should anyone care? and what does it even matter to perform a speculative exercise in futility due to the lack of data? Christianity as we know it is the tradition of orthodox Christianity as standardized in the 4th CE. Everything else not only has absolutely no relevance but even worse what we know about everything else is what those orthodoxes told us about their opponents and divergents disabling us from ever being able to make an informed and objective statement.
#14637252
I think ancient Christianity has relevance because their conclusions were usually rational interpretations of the gospel and when you deal with Christians who haven't studied orthodox Christianity (in any form) you find those beliefs are still widespread, even though they aren't canonized. With the caveat of course that beliefs related to destroyed texts don't exist in the same forms anymore.

For example, the Arian heresy and many gnostic beliefs are still common even among people who consider themselves Christians.
#14637275
Of course there are but not because they follow their tradition but because they have reached to that conclusion independently.

Besides I believe it very easy and rational for these to reappear as they are obvious questions that even a child will ask you and the explanations given by either side are as ridiculous as it goes anyway. This was not a rigorous or rational debate but a chicken fight at its very essence where beatings, insults and all manner of hatred were common.
Last edited by noemon on 31 Dec 2015 22:57, edited 1 time in total.
#14637282
noemon wrote:I disagree with this. This is not historically true I would think. Civilizations have an expiration date and if they do not reform, transform and evolve they disappear because they can no longer respond to the evolving social demands and needs, the Roman transition to Christianity ensured another 1000 years of the Roman Empire, the transition of the Axis forces to liberalism ensured the survival of these nations, the breaks with tradition vary for every era and civilization but they all include painful breaks with tradition and the advent of something new to provide a fresh motivational impetus for continued growth.

Civilizations do have an expiration date - with this I agree.
Fascism & communism failed, liberalism has failed too, we are now brewing something new, something which will render all these 19th century philosophies to an academic subject like the enlightenment, reformation, chivalry.

The implication that civilization is evolving toward something is unclear. It is possible that the systems we live under are adaptations to objective material conditions - new technologies, climate, disease, population density, etc. Formal ideologies are the post hoc narratives we impose on the past, intended to give us some illusion of understanding.

From this perspective, you could view capitalism not as a formal ideological system but simply what happens when money and markets are subjected to human cunning and greed. You cannot defeat it for the simple reason that you cannot defeat human nature. At best human systems can only be made more humane, they can't be perfected.

From the point of view of romantic fascists, making politics more humane is not an ideal. The human race is a canvas upon which they paint their masterpiece.

Either way, the space allotted for individual autonomy is fairly constrained.
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Are people on this thread actually trying to argu[…]

Isn't oil and electricity bought and sold like ev[…]

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]