What are your thoughts on Hegel? [FASCIST EDITION] - 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.
#14856066
Here is some particularly appealing ideas for conservatives/fascists:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sittlichkeit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_idealism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_Hegelians
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic ... _dialectic

I highly recommend that you don't just read these links but also read his books as well.
#14882416
Oxymandias wrote:Here is some particularly appealing ideas for conservatives/fascists:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sittlichkeit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_idealism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_Hegelians
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic ... _dialectic

I highly recommend that you don't just read these links but also read his books as well.


Hegel's thought has an inherent evolutionary progression to it, the whole program of thesis-antithesis-synthesis is inherently progressive, which is why Marxism flowed so fluidly out of that system and why almost no fascist or far-right thinker ever adopted it.

Indeed, the existential critiques of absolutist idealism were more-or-less adopted by the Right in response, especially in Nietzsche. Indeed, Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Spengler are far more consistent with far-right thought as a far as philosophy is concerned; wherein, progress is denied completely.

It seems fundamental to the thought of the far-right to look at the decadence and moral decay of our era as having been "predictable" and based on some sort of degenerative aspect with the political solution being either a return to, or forced re-institution of, those inherent values which made a society or civilization morally viable and strong.

The only reason Hegel was considered to be right-wing was because he denied democratic values in that his system was inherently collectivist because we all, in some sense, share in the Absolute. For Hegel, the Monarch or head of state was always the perfect representation of the absolute, of the zeitgeist made manifest, and thus obedience was requisite. This is not dissimilar from Hobbes's conception of the Monarchy as being the perfect manifestation of the will of the people, and thus recourse against such authority was ipso facto immoral and to be prohibited.

Both Hobbes and Hegel gave collective grounds for their conception of an absolute state (even if philosophically for entirely different reasons), but neither were traditionalists or right in the sense of early 20th far-right or in the sense of most Monarchists after the thought of men like Sir Robert Filmer. Indeed, I would classify both Hobbes and Hegel as morally indifferent Statists. In Hobbes, morality was purely determined by the state irrespective of any dialectic of history, but in contrast, Hegel also being a progressive, argued that morality was both evolving and relative to the age and would be most manifest in the state in its time.

Hegel was basically a pantheist, and Hobbes was an atheist, which amount to the same thing when it comes to question of transcendent morality, which both systems fundamentally deny over-and-against Theism.

Atleast Nietzsche and Spengler acknowledged that the belief in a transcendent morality (the actual truth of which they questioned) was in some ways necessary for a stable civilization, with the solution to the "death of God," being one they believed must be presented even if they had few answers of their own on how to do this beyond the necessity of absolute state supported by a "second religiousness" or revival in the belief of a Divinely authorized transcendent ethical code.

Thus, to summarize:

Hegel was a Statist, but he was not a traditionalist or "Right," because:

1. He believed moral and family values were determined, like all ideas, by the zeitgeist via the progress of the dialectic of history, flowing from the Absolute, via thesis-antithesis-synthesis. He denied a cyclical pattern to history in any sense.

2. For these reasons, he denied that traditional values were necessary for a vibrant civilization, for all "traditions" were inherently antiquated, they were already obsolete thesis' that were at some point integrated with their antithesis into the modern "synthesis."

3. The state was absolute and collective obedience was required, because it represented the perfect incarnation (I am using that term loosely) of the Absolute and thus the zeitgeist.

4. Morality is evolving and progressing and changing, no one morality can be said to have ever been superior. Indeed, the morality of the NOW is always the true morality for this age, and whatever morality will become thesis in the future will be the true morality then, all past moralities were true for their time, but cannot be true or helpful for ours.

Hegel, was therefore a morally indifferent statist, who believed that values were temporally relative, and that both history and man and his values were progressive in nature, moving forward to greater manifestations of the Absolute yet to come.

Hegel cannot be of help to the Far-Right, and that most great Far-Right thinkers rejected his thought during the Far-Right's "Golden Age" in the early 20th century, is itself telling.
#14882511
@Victoribus Spolia

That was a good read. Thank you.

Your post gave me a glimpse into the ideologies of the Far-Right in general. Given that Hegel isn't a Far-Right philosopher, do you know any philosophers and writers particularly during the early 20th century that could potentially provide deeper insight into the American and ergo, Western Far-Right?

On another note, what do you think about Neo-Reaction?
#14882662
@Oxymandias,

I am a Neo-Reactionary.

and

..........an Enotitian ;)

Most Important Far-Right Reads (early 20th century), in order of importance (by Author).

Oswald Spengler

1. The Decline of the West (2 volumes, unabridged) by Oswald Spengler.
2. Man and Technics by Oswald Spengler.
3. The Hour of Decision by Oswald Spengler.

Julius Evola

1. Men Among The Ruins by Julius Evola
2. The Metaphysics of War by Julius Evola.
3. Ride the Tiger by Julius Evola.
4. Revolt Against the Modern World by Julius Evola.
5. The Metaphysics of Sex by Julius Evola.
6. Notes on The Third Reich by Julius Evola.
7. A Traditionalist Confronts Fascism by Julius Evola.
8. Fascism Viewed From The Right by Julius Evola.


Carl Schmitt


1. The Concept of The Political. by Carl Schmitt.
2. Political Theology 1 & 2. by Carl Schmitt.
3. The Nomos of The Earth. by Carl Schmitt.
4. The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy. by Carl Schmitt.
5. Theory of the Partisan. by Carl Schmitt.
6. Dictatorship. by Carl Schmitt.
7. The Leviathan in The State Theory of Hobbes. by Carl Schmitt.
8. Writings on War. by Carl Schmitt.
9. Legality and Legitimacy. by Carl Schmitt.

Martin Heidegger.

1. Being and Time. by Martin Heidegger (which I read with Alexandr Dugin's work "Martin Heidegger: The Philosophy of Another Beginning")
2. The Question Concerning Technology by Martin Heidegger.
3. Introduction to Metaphysics by Martin Heidegger.

Giovanni Gentile

1. Origins and The Doctrine of Fascism by Giovanni Gentile.
2. The Reform of Education by Giovanni Gentile.
3. The Theory of Mind as Pure Act by Giovanni Gentile.

OTHER:

1. Imperium by Francis Parker Yockey.
2. Essays on Fascism by Bennito Mussolini.
3. Mein Kampf and Zweites Buch. by Adolf Hitler (you should read them.)
4. The Greatest Story Never Told (documentary about Nazi Germany and Hitler).
5. Sex and Culture by J.D. Unwin. (THE MOST IMPORTANT BOOK I HAVE EVER READ, Politically Speaking)
6. The International Jew (In Two Volumes) by Henry Ford.

All the fictional works by:

1. Ernst Junger.
2. Yukio Mishima.



Pre- 20th century:

1. Frederick Nietzsche. Everything He Wrote.

Post 20th Century:

1. The Fourth Political Theory by Alexsandr Dugin.
2. The Bell Curve by Hernstein and Murray.
3. The Rational Male (Volumes 1-3) by Rollo Tomassi
4. Sexual Utopia Power by F Roger Devlin.
5. The Intelligence Paradox by Satoshi Kanazawa.
6. Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters by Satoshi Kanazawa.
7. The Culture of Critique by Kevin Macdonald.


Great Youtube Channels:

Black Pigeon Speaks.
Oswald Spengler.


The above authors I have personally read and led me to the Alt. Right before I left the movement for the Neo-Reactionary Movement. If you want to know what moved the bars for me into Neo-Reaction, it would be combination of stuff that I digested prior to being in the Alt. Right and stuff after being in the Alt.Right and would be an additional list. The above should help you out quite a bit.

Why did I leave the Alt. Right? Here is my list:

1. I am an Imperialist and not merely a Nationalist (protectionist). I believe that expansion and colonization are essential to a healthy people.
2. I reject a biological conception of Race because I deny both darwinism, physical causation, and the existence of matter. Likewise, I believe that mating with a conquered people's women is essential to dominating them.
3. I am an Orthodox and Confessional Christian. I despise both Paganism and Atheism.
4. I am Patriarchal in a more extreme sense, Traditional roles and fecundity are just the beginning.
5. I am very Pro-Life, I deny that eugenics are necessary to solve problems with bad pairings and poor offspring.
6. I am a Monarchist, but not necessarily a "statist" per se. The state is not God, but His representative and the patrilineal father of his people.
7. I deny the paranoid insanity of Far-Right Anti-semitism (Because I deny a secret omnipotent Jewish world-order exists), while still acknowledging the reality of demographics and thus affirming the existence of a qualified "Jewish Problem" when it comes to their negative domination of media, entertainment, politics, and banking, etc.
8. I am very skeptical of technological advancement which seems to be a weird fetish in alt.right circles. Science fiction fantasies are not traditionalist.
#14882756
@Victoribus Spolia

That's quite the extensive list you've got there! I'll be sure to check them all out if I can!

8. I am very skeptical of technological advancement which seems to be a weird fetish in alt.right circles. Science fiction fantasies are not traditionalist.


I think a huge part of that is that Neo-reaction was created by and a majority of the New Right are, Silicon Valley techies who became disillusioned by liberalism and romanticize the days of old. Of course Dark Enlightenment is fundamentally incompatible with technology (it says it on the essay itself) but, despite their contradictions, they are a valuable political asset to conservatism.

For starters, these techies are native to the liberal heartlands of California and the blue states making them vital for potential funding and sponsorship as sort of "revolutionaires" and spreaders for conservative thought.

Secondly, they could, if strong enough, prevent California and other blue states from rebelling against the American Imperial State and His Excellency. The blue states and California especially have always been wild horses, disregarding American values for foreign ones incompatible with both America and itself. If the American Imperial State was implemented California would most certainly secede with others of its calibur following suit.

Then the state is in a fix. California was once a beacon of American values and, during that Golden Age, came to be thousands of artifacts, pieces of architecture, and windows of culture valuable to America's heritage. By seceding, California would hold itself hostage with the traitors and their foreign values ruining it. Why, I am of the opinion that such filth shouldn't be allowed to rule the smallest clops of dirt around their feet.

But we cannot risk a military invasion. The Californians are still Americans, they are but only misguided by a despotic regime which aims to remove them of what makes them valuable. First they take away religion, then they take away the basic morals that God has instilled into every human on earth, and finally, when their decadency proves to much, their culture is taken away from them. By that point what would remain of the Californians would be corpses, zombies. Because that is what happens when you take away the things that make them human.

But the techies of course can mitigate that.

(By the way I don't agree with your ideology I just kinda in a RP kinda mood.)
#14882960
Reichstraten wrote:That's interesting. Figures like Nietzsche, Spengler and Heidegger are also forerunners of postmodernism.
Are you a right-wing postmodernist?


No.

I deny any form of relativism, which all of those authors held to in one way or another in different ways and places.

I left the Alt. Right based on the reasons quoted:

Victoribus Spolia wrote:1. I am an Imperialist and not merely a Nationalist (protectionist). I believe that expansion and colonization are essential to a healthy people.
2. I reject a biological conception of Race because I deny both darwinism, physical causation, and the existence of matter. Likewise, I believe that mating with a conquered people's women is essential to dominating them.
3. I am an Orthodox and Confessional Christian. I despise both Paganism and Atheism.
4. I am Patriarchal in a more extreme sense, Traditional roles and fecundity are just the beginning.
5. I am very Pro-Life, I deny that eugenics are necessary to solve problems with bad pairings and poor offspring.
6. I am a Monarchist, but not necessarily a "statist" per se. The state is not God, but His representative and the patrilineal father of his people.
7. I deny the paranoid insanity of Far-Right Anti-semitism (Because I deny a secret omnipotent Jewish world-order exists), while still acknowledging the reality of demographics and thus affirming the existence of a qualified "Jewish Problem" when it comes to their negative domination of media, entertainment, politics, and banking, etc.
8. I am very skeptical of technological advancement which seems to be a weird fetish in alt.right circles. Science fiction fantasies are not traditionalist.


My views are thus:

1. Christian Theocratic.

I believe that the state is to be the instrument of God to enforce and implement the True Religion by (1) the establishing of a national church, (2) the promoting of the spread of the Gospel, and (3) by the implementing biblical civil laws (theonomy)

2. Patriarchal-Fecundist

I believe that all aspects of human society are to be patriarchal. Society is to be divided by family, clan, tribe, nation, etc., The father is the head of the family, the oldest male patrilineal descendant of a founding family head is the the head of the clan, the patrilineal head of the oldest clan/tribe is the king, etc, etc.,

In this, I deny that women have any, or ought to have any, political enfranchisement when it comes to civic participation or rule except in extraordinary circumstances.

I affirm that the primary purpose and political role of women is to produce children; and therefore, contraception should be generally illegal because it is wicked. reproducing for the Empire is the highest role for a woman and it is by no means a lesser position than that of a man. In fact, it may be more important and should be elevated as such.

In this, I also believe in re-instituting arranged marriages, courtship, primogeniture, chivalric codes, etc, etc.,

3. Neo-Mercantilist.

I am a variant of capitalist, a pre-Smith capitalist. I believe that all land in a nation is to be regarded the private property of the King alone, given in stewardship to his people as to his children. It is a primary principle that people ought to work to be fulfilled; thus, it is in the interest of the state to implement tariffs, and regulate imports and exports in such a way to maximize currency value, maintain cheap raw imports, and export goods that are domestically manufactured. This is to be the ends, and not the means, of economics. The means of accomplishing this is by what might be necessary to do so (see Imperialism).

4. Western-Chauvenist.

I believe western civilization, in its people, values, traditions, etc., is superior to all previous civilizations and ought to be preserved, protected, and advanced.

5. Imperialist.

I believe that man is by nature a dominator, and that for civilization to remain healthy, it must expand and conquer. I believe this perpetuates a masculine and familial ethos among the people (which is essential for true happiness and vitality), increases prosperity, and advances mankind and in many ways is often the best thing that could happen to a clearly weaker and decadent people (that is, to be conquered and made useful to the Empire).

6. Monarchist.

I affirm that monarchy is the best form of government, historically, philosophically, and biblically. It maintains the necessary hierarchy for the establishment of a healthy society, maintains efficiency, advances the arts, protects the Faith, and ensures the greatest level of "acceptable" liberty for its people.

7. Trinitarian Phenomenal Idealist.

If one experiences the simple subjective sensation of "redness", the Trinitarian God of Christianity must necessarily exist. There is no physical causation, no mind-independent material substance. Reality as we experience it is mental content by nature made manifest by the Supreme Trinitarian Mind called God.

8. Having A Neo-Nietzschean and Neo-Freudian (Unwinite) Conception of Human Sexuality and Political Anthropology.

I believe that thesis of Frederick Nietzche and J.D. Unwin correlate to human nature (as also described in Holy Scripture). Expanding sexual opportunity and political enfranchisment for women always leads to societal collapse, and all men are impelled by their own nature to expand, dominate, and conquer (will-to-power); however, without religious and transcendent grounds to do so, and by the ceasing to do so, men began to self-loathe, they become decadent, immoral, irreligious, and effeminate, and society collapses.

In order to maintain dominance, man must never rest from religiously justified conquest, for he will drown in his own prosperity, the coming overdose being manifest in the expansion of civil power and sexual opportunity to women. After which point, most civilizations have fallen within four generations.

These are my positions. They are not post-modern.

They are traditionalist and neo-reactionary.
#14882971
Reichstraten wrote:So you pick from these thinkers what supports your political views and ignore the rest they're saying?


Correct.

I glean from any author what he offers if it is right.

Nietzsche is right about the primary impetus of man being "The Will to Power."

Reichstraten wrote:Friedrich Nietzsche was as anti-christian as a man can get. How on earth does he support a traditionalist christian world view?


Nietzsche's ire was most manifest against the late 19th century's progressive Christianity (much of his criticisms being spot on), likewise his anti-egalitarianism, doctrine of will-to-power, of a strong state, etc., are all interesting and compatible with my views. This does not mean I agree with everything he believes. I deny his understanding of textual criticism, his doctrine of eternal recurrence, and various other views.

I take from him, arguably his most important doctrine: The Will to Power, which completely comports to the notion that living things in Scripture, and especially man, are to be fruitful and multiply and to subdue the earth and have dominion over it. Not merely to "survive" as gifted by chance.
#14882981
Alright, you can reject parts of his thought.
But with the doctrine of the will to power Nietzsche laid bare the modernist project. That's why he's called a master of suspicion.
Modernization is often at odds with traditionalist values.
There are lots of good movies about this, like Fiddler on the Roof or Khadak. Highly recommended movies.
We have a Dutch poet who said: "Everything of value is defenseless."
Traditionalist values can be valuable, but are often defenseless when confronted with modernity.
#14883009
Reichstraten wrote:But with the doctrine of the will to power Nietzsche laid bare the modernist project. That's why he's called a master of suspicion.
Modernization is often at odds with traditionalist values.


Agreed.

Reichstraten wrote:There are lots of good movies about this, like Fiddler on the Roof or Khadak. Highly recommended movies.


I actually played in the former in highschool, never saw the latter.

Reichstraten wrote:Traditionalist values can be valuable, but are often defenseless when confronted with modernity.



I disagree with this, and to illustrate, from your own example:

In Fiddler on the Roof, it was not that traditional values were defenseless, but that Tevye failed to defend them. It was not that the Jewish provincial customs were defeated in their exile from Russia, but that they were powerless to prevent it from happening.

Let us not make the mistake of conflating human error and circumstance with a lack of inherent and universal virtue. Murder may always be wrong, even if people fail to act as if it were so. Traditions may always be the only real solution to human ills, even people refuse to abide them.
#14884513
The will to power originated in the modern period, that does not mean it is a "modernist" outlook. That just means that the coinage of the term and its precise unpacking are more contemporaneous. However, the content of that position is thoroughly ancient.

Indeed, even the term "traditionalist" is a modernist term in most respects as it looks back to previous values, A medieval merchant would neither call himself a traditionalist, nor would he understand the term, but he likely was a traditionalist as the term would likely describe his views adequately.

The point is, is that modern thinkers are often helpful in their thought in aiding my purposes of developing a traditionalist philosophy.The Will-to-Power is helpful in this sense.

There is no contradiction in my thought. Not in the least.
#14885071
Reichstraten wrote:I prefer Pascal´s christian pessimism to Nietzsche´s bombastic philosophy.
Most christians do so, probably.


collective preference is not evidence of collective "correctness."
#14886410
Victoribus Spolia wrote:collective preference is not evidence of collective "correctness."


I think it was once Aristotle who said that that which is believed in by many cannot be altogether wrong. It might serve as a issue of further discussion, Pascal and Neitzsche, because the later did write of the former, and Pascal is a bit of a corrective to Neitzsche and others of his ilk (even though he did have some profound insights).
#14887136
annatar1914 wrote:I think it was once Aristotle who said that that which is believed in by many cannot be altogether wrong. It might serve as a issue of further discussion, Pascal and Neitzsche, because the later did write of the former, and Pascal is a bit of a corrective to Neitzsche and others of his ilk (even though he did have some profound insights).


There is much correction needed in Nietszche, but I don't think the general thrust of the will-to-power is one of them, and don't get me wrong, there is much in Pascal I like and I am a fan of the very Augustinian Jansenists of which he was a part.

However, I do think we must be careful in measuring "correct" views based on a zeitgeist or popular assent, not because such may often point to truisms, but because an appeal to popular appeal is a fallacy. We should not flirt with fallacious justifications for out positions, in my opinion.
#14887294
Victoribus Spolia wrote:There is much correction needed in Nietszche, but I don't think the general thrust of the will-to-power is one of them, and don't get me wrong, there is much in Pascal I like and I am a fan of the very Augustinian Jansenists of which he was a part.

However, I do think we must be careful in measuring "correct" views based on a zeitgeist or popular assent, not because such may often point to truisms, but because an appeal to popular appeal is a fallacy. We should not flirt with fallacious justifications for out positions, in my opinion.


Sure, ''will to power'' is so obvious a driving force in human behavior that I am still amazed at those who deny it. Comes down to the ''Will'', as the Fathers describe it. Opinion is the queen of the world though, and while everyone knows what is right so few actually do it.
#14887342
Victoribus Spolia wrote:an appeal to popular appeal is a fallacy. We should not flirt with fallacious justifications for out positions, in my opinion.


VS, you're making a mountain out of a molehill.
I just said most christians would probably prefer Pascal to Nietzsche. Incidentally like I do.
My stand is not due to popular consent. I don't think many christians have actually read these two authors.
The reason is because I read both of them. I think Nietzsche is a highly overrated author.
He gives some interesting psychological insights, but it's actually an anti-philosophy.
#14887468
Reichstraten wrote:VS, you're making a mountain out of a molehill.


Nah, I really am not taking it that seriously. Just pointing out that the majority of Christians preferring Pascal is kinda irrelevant. Thats all.
Trump and Russiagate

The single most significant defect in U.S. polit[…]

James Allsup EXPOSED

James Allsup is a White Nationalist Youtuber with[…]

I think it's called sexual selection, @Godstud G[…]

let's not forget the Vietnam war when the US empir[…]