Le Rouge wrote:Never forget: Fascists are following Soren Kierkegaard and Friedriech Nietzsche into play-acting art-affirmation of conservative feudal reaction. Fascists are not merely 'slave-masters', they are feudal lords and all traditional forms of hierarchy as well. Fascists reject liberalism and communism because liberalism and communism reject traditional hierarchy. Fascism is an attempt to confine the necessity of social change to the traditional hierarchy through conservative social revolution by immortalizing the conservative hierarchies of the past and shifting political-economic revolution to traditionalist aesthetic revolution of 'art for art's sake'. Hereby, all feminist, socialist, egalitarian, and communist impulses are channeled into the art of conservative-traditionalist progress of hierarchy. This artistic progress of hierarchy subsumes all human development into the corporation of the Fuhrer/Monarch/Supreme Leader.
While my reply is maybe a little late, I still beg to differ.
Le Rouge wrote:Never forget: Fascists are following Soren Kierkegaard and Friedriech Nietzsche into play-acting art-affirmation of conservative feudal reaction.
Same old story. I don't know much about Kierkegaard but Nietzsche was certainly the farthest thing from what one can call feudal reaction. Not just he rejected conservative morals and divine rights, the tenets which traditional societies were founded upon; but he also openly expressed his utter disgust regarding nationalism and conservatism. Just like socialism or social progression. One does not simply classifiy him as a revolutionary or as a reactionary philosopher. It's not that simple.
Regarding the rest: to identify traditionalism and fascism as the same is a mistake equal to calling council communism, for example fundamentally the same as state socialism. There's a difference. The most widely known traditionalist thinker, Evola, for example, was a staunch critic of Mussolini's state. He was even harrassed by fascist law enforcement.
Fascism in its core is (like it or not) a revolutionary idea. It rejects traditional hierarchy (while it is true that it seeks to establish a new one). Also, real hardline fascism (so not like Franco or Horthy, think of Mussolini or Codreanu) is not comaptible with feudalism or conservative revolution. Hitler, for example, had a strong opposition among the ranks of old Prussian junker families and even people like Spengler disagreed with him greatly. And then there's the left-wing of the NSDAP, the Strasserists, who were about as anti-feudal and anti-capitalist as one can imagine, but still fascist in nature.
Revolution is not always liberal, reaction is not always traditionalist.