[Far-Right Sage]

Except that all too often the aristocracy just hoards the best resources and knowledge from the masses. How would The Great Work guarantee that the leaders will act in the best interests of the group?

There is no guarantee in life, but no one is discussing hoisting some secretive coven of a few "elite" men and women on top of the pedestal of power in a nation-state. Fascism is a mass action, populist, popular movement. The groundwork must often be laid by a legionnaire of sorts, a political soldier willing to dedicate mind, body, and soul to such a cause, such as Corneliu Zelea Codreanu and his heroically defiant Iron Guard were in Romania.

[youtube]rWQkAfSLSLA[/youtube]

It's a common misnomer what you are saying about the power abuse of some supposedly rogue elite. To the extent that leaders of fascist states were "elites" (and I do not consider them this - it was Hitler himself who said "I am nothing but your speaker"), they were not corrupt, nor was power abused for selfish ends; quite the contrary. Totalitarian states, in direct contrast to authoritarian entities, are typically marked with extremely low levels of corruption. Far less corruption was present in National Socialist Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan than one would find in many authoritarian states formerly around in Eastern Europe, in the Middle East, in Africa, etc. And far less corruption than modern liberal democracies within the West.

Then what about Aryanism and the Aryan peoples are better than everyone else and should rule?

It should first be emphasized that ārya simply translates from the Sanskrit language to English as "noble". Would you not desire noble people leading every society on earth to its greatest heights, tapping into absolute native potential to furnish the ascendant path? National Socialism stressed ethnic German nationalism which extended in part to an elevated European and global position for the Germanic peoples (the Dutch, Norwegians, Danes, Swedes, etc.) because National Socialism was a German fascism. Within Italian fascism, the direction of ethnic nationalism clearly took a different course. A National Socialist movement could theoretically arise in Somalia or Kenya as it has everywhere else from Syria to Argentina. It would simply adapt to local concerns.

Figlio, would you say that fascism and atheism are incompatible?

I realize this question was addressed to Figlio, but I also wanted to chime in to state unequivocally: Absolutely.

Atheism is a degenerate ideology not concerned with broader reality or preparing men in the long term for poking holes through to the next level of consciousness and laying the groundwork for the crowning moment of mass self-realization on this planet. Fascism and atheism are as incompatible as fascism and capitalism, fascism and Marxian socialism, fascism and base individualistic hedonism (libertarianism), etc.

[DeadPresidents]

Under what terms? He was taking a new direction when he was murdered, so I can't say whether he'd have become something akin or not. Certainly he, as well as the likes of Huey Newton, Bobby Seale, and Fred Hampton, would've been left-nationalist.

I can't speak for them, though, or much of their trajectory. Malcolm X had went from NOI to Islam, so it's possible he'd have found his way to sufism (as Rene Guenon had fifty years earlier), but that's speculation. The five percenters, on the other hand, have both an exclusivist view and touch on certain focuses of perennialism, though I'm not sure they'd be in the same strain, either.

I do believe they tended towards left-nationalism out of inherent reactions to the white right, or what we'd been taught "right-wing" had become. At the same time, they were ethnonationalists.

But would that be the correct way for a ethnic group to go according to fascism.

I am trying to wrap my head around this.

[Figlio di Moros]

Well, there's a lot that could be said of it, but that's true of any movement. There have been National Socialist movements all over the world, as FRS just mentioned; Germany had not just Hitler, but the Strasserites as well. Mussolini straddled change, but inevitably created the Salo (capitalized?) Republic towards the end of the war. Codreanu, as well, had a seperate movement for Romania. Integralists in Brazil. Peronism in Argentina. Today, there are movements in Malaysia, India, Japan, Mongolia, Libya, Egypt, Syria...

For blacks, I can not answer- on the one hand, I'm not black; on the other, the black community has to solve questions concerning it's own identity. I'd say that under Malcolm X or the BPP, blacks had asserted their own identity and were becoming self-actualized.

[DeadPresidents]

Well, there's a lot that could be said of it, but that's true of any movement. There have been National Socialist movements all over the world, as FRS just mentioned; Germany had not just Hitler, but the Strasserites as well. Mussolini straddled change, but inevitably created the Salo (capitalized?) Republic towards the end of the war. Codreanu, as well, had a seperate movement for Romania. Integralists in Brazil. Peronism in Argentina. Today, there are movements in Malaysia, India, Japan, Mongolia, Libya, Egypt, Syria...

For blacks, I can not answer- on the one hand, I'm not black; on the other, the black community needs to redevelop it's own identity. I'd say that under Malcolm X or the BPP, blacks had asserted their own identity and were becoming self-actualized.

Hmm....okay now I get it.

Fascism

- Esoteric tradition that binds all the people in the nation on race or common heritage

- State directed economy or Georgianism

- Heroic leadership

- Private Property

- Rejection of Liberal Capitalism and Liberal Internationalism

Can fascism exist without the heroic leadership and replace a state directed economy with an economy like Singapore?

[Far-Right Sage]

Well, there's a lot that could be said of it, but that's true of any movement. There have been National Socialist movements all over the world, as FRS just mentioned; Germany had not just Hitler, but the Strasserites as well. Mussolini straddled change, but inevitably created the Salo (capitalized?) Republic towards the end of the war. Codreanu, as well, had a seperate movement for Romania. Integralists in Brazil. Peronism in Argentina. Today, there are movements in Malaysia, India, Japan, Mongolia, Libya, Egypt, Syria..

Not to mention the Lusitanian integralism of the Portuguese National Syndicalists under Francisco Rolão Preto. With Preto's movement really getting off the ground after Italian fascism took hold and later inspiring their Iberian comrades in the form of Jose Antonio's Falange, Portugal had a dynamic and fertile ground for fascism which was never, in some sense, actualized, because movements such as the syndicalists were marginalized by Antonio de Oliveira Salazar's Estado Novo government as happened in Spain after Franco betrayed the Falange. Thus they remained somewhat of an anomaly half ejected from the uterus and are referred to by some such as author and historian Roger Griffin as proto-fascist.

Also, yes, Salo is capitalized.

On a side note, I was never in Malcolm X's corner although he was an interesting figure certainly, but Marcus Garvey I believe was a brighter star and more unfortunate loss for the black masses groping desperately in the dark amidst a sea of strangers to recover their own identity and consciousness on a foreign continent.

[DeadPresidents]

On a side note, I was never in Malcolm X's corner although he was an interesting figure certainly, but Marcus Garvey I believe was a brighter star and more unfortunate loss for the black masses groping desperately in the dark amidst a sea of strangers to recover their own identity and consciousness on a foreign continent.

I think Malcolm X would have a better chance though. He was more captivating and was not competing with WEB Dubois for "the leader of Black people" title.

Garvey desire to create a state for Blacks was great but I do not believe Africans and Black Holocaust victims can actually mix. Too culturally different.

Garvey and Malcolm X had a similar idea but Garvey seemed to be more...I guess crazy....Malcolm X became more wishy washy in his view of White people but then again racism is a hindrance; rather be like Garvey and ignore the White liberals and White racists instead of engage them.


All in All. Malcolm X was a better speaker and mover of Black people . Garvey was the better theorist.


But I think I am a Black Fascist just didn't know I was

[Figlio di Moros]

The question of a fascist economy is a seperate topic from the great work, but yes, we do admire much of how the Asian Tigers operate. I hope FRS and Rei won't disagree with me here, but the subject of economy is one of pragmaticism, not ideology.

As for abandoning "heroic leadership"- a people are only as good as whom they take cues from. If the leadership is materialist, the people will follow- note, expensive cars and objects signaling status in todays society. We're lead by haute-bourgeosie, and therefore must mimick their greed and wealth to promote the image of a higher wealth for ourselves. I cannot see a fascist state in which the leadership is divorced from the same principles we intend to promote, being or remaining a fascist state.

There's what's refered to as "the regression of the castes". The Veda's (sic) refered to the Ksatriya and Brahmin having originally been the same caste- the "warrior" and the "religion". However, they seperated into two, with the Ksatriya being the aristocracy and Brahmin the priests. With a seperation of these two functions rather than their reinforcement of eachother, both degrade. Arisotcracy became secularized; the Priests, likewise, becamesecularized with a transition from esotericism to exoteric, dogmatic religion. The effects on society were that, rather than upholding the best virtues of society, people wanted the power and the wealth they commanded for themselves. It devolved further into the situation today; the bourgeosie (more specifically, a cancerous growth of the bourgeosie, the hatue-bourgeosie) are who lead our society. So, in place of any sense of virtue or duty, we promote conspicous consumerism and hedonism.

No, I'd absolutely say the type and quality of leadership you have dictates how society chooses to function.

Not to mention the Lusitanian integralism of the Portuguese National Syndicalists under Francisco Rolão Preto. With Preto's movement really getting off the ground after Italian fascism took hold and later inspiring their Iberian comrades in the form of Jose Antonio's Falange, Portugal had a dynamic and fertile ground for fascism which was never, in some sense, actualized, because movements such as the syndicalists were marginalized by Antonio de Oliveira Salazar's Estado Novo government as happened in Spain after Franco betrayed the Falange. Thus they remained somewhat of an anomaly half ejected from the uterus and are referred to by some such as author and historian Roger Griffin as proto-fascist.

Of course, it's a great point to make. There were some movements remembered as "fascist", such as Franco's Spain or Salazar's Portugal, which were "half-aborted" or blatantly sold out. There are other governments, such as Pinochet, which were in no way fascist whatsoever, but which still are wrongly called such simply because there was a (liberal) dictator.

[DeadPresidents]

The question of a fascist economy is a seperate topic from the great work, but yes, we do admire much of how the Asian Tigers operate. I hope FRS and Rei won't disagree with me here, but the subject of economy is one of pragmaticism, not ideology.

As for abandoning "heroic leadership"- a people are only as good as whom they take cues from. If the leadership is materialist, the people will follow- note, expensive cars and objects signaling status in todays society. We're lead by haute-bourgeosie, and therefore must mimick their greed and wealth to promote the image of a higher wealth for ourselves. I cannot see a fascist state in which the leadership is divorced from the same principles we intend to promote, being or remaining a fascist state.

There's what's refered to as "the regression of the castes". The Veda's (sic) refered to the Ksatriya and Brahmin having originally been the same caste- the "warrior" and the "religion". However, they seperated into two, with the Ksatriya being the aristocracy and Brahmin the priests. With a seperation of these two functions rather than their reinforcement of eachother, both degrade. Arisotcracy became secularized; the Priests, likewise, becamesecularized with a transition from esotericism to exoteric, dogmatic religion. The effects on society were that, rather than upholding the best virtues of society, people wanted the power and the wealth they commanded for themselves. It devolved further into the situation today; the bourgeosie (more specifically, a cancerous growth of the bourgeosie, the hatue-bourgeosie) are who lead our society. So, in place of any sense of virtue or duty, we promote conspicous consumerism and hedonism.

No, I'd absolutely say the type and quality of leadership you have dictates how society chooses to function.

First of all. Sorry if I am derailing the thread, just wanted to wrap my mind around fascism.

I personally favor an economy like Singapore's which is relatively simple and focused towards productivity through free markers and occasional government intervention and some socialization of services like Health Care and retirement funds.

I also would favor a more of a republic than a dictaorship...sorta like America without the national voting. I would favor a direct democracy in states, but national issues still within the republic.

Does heoric leadership means dictatorship? Or Just charismatic leadership in government?

I would rather PM though if it means the thread is derailed.

[Far-Right Sage]

I hope FRS and Rei won't disagree with me here, but the subject of economy is one of pragmaticism, not ideology.

I agree in part. Corporatism is important from a doctrinal standpoint because it is the only form of economic structuring which promotes an organic resolution to class conflict rather than seeking to suppress it, as capitalism does, or exacerbate it, as communism does. In this sense corporations and their representative boards along with the whole of the population in the Corporate state function as different organs lending themselves harmoniously to one whole.

That said, of course it is true that this is also pragmatic and a "means to an end" of sorts. Stepping back further, one could say that engaging in the game of politics at all and thus, fascism, are simply means to and end which we were discussing at the beginning of this topic.

There are other governments, such as Pinochet, which were in no way fascist whatsoever, but which still are wrongly called such simply because there was a (liberal) dictator.

Quite like erroneous types such as Social Critic refer to Joseph Stalin, Fidel Castro, and Hugo Chavez as fascists. At first one believes "Ah, they are merely ignorant. Let me endeavor to correct them!". You quickly realize however that many hold tight to this ridiculous narrative out of flawed ideologically driven thinking. Pinochet was quite literally a man installed in Chile by liberals to enact liberal policies in the form of introducing the theories and practices of Milton Friedman and the Chicago Boys' school of economics to Santiago, yet American and British liberals in the present day can't accept he was a liberal. Why? It probably has something to do with the fact that they hold on to a ludicrous narrative in which liberal actors don't commit great violence because British or U.S. authorities do not do so on the streets today long after liberalism has been cemented against the odds in these societies, ignoring the entire history of the French Revolution. Or for that matter, the policies against the developing world by liberals since the Second World War which has resulted in the deaths of tens of millions of people.

[Rei Murasame]

1. Are you saying that the universe is sapient?

Sort of, yes.

2. This sounds an awfully lot like Corporatism, but with a quasi-religious dressing. Is this what it's based off of, or are the similarities coincidental?

I don't know if it's coincidental, although 'total ideological homogeneity' is the point where one conceivably intersects with the other.

3. This sounds just like a religion. Bridging the gap between physical and spiritual worlds, coming into contact with a group of "higher" beings on another planes of existence.

It is indeed religious, explicitly so. I think that people are not always aware that there is a religious component to the things that we say, because only very rarely do I get the chance to directly post about it, since I'm usually more indirect.

For instance, in the embedded link in the above sentence where it links to a post of me quoting Sita Ram Goel, and the one where I am quoting Mircea Eliade, people should've been able to of course realise that they are talking to a religious person (after all, an atheist would never support the sort of things that they are calling for), but it's like people forget sometimes.

It may be a good thing that I don't send off the 'dangerous religious extremist' warning bells though, since not sending off the alarm bells is usually a sign that someone has successfully immersed themselves in the era and is working out the problem immanently.

EDIT: On a side note that reminds me of a conversation I had with a Hindu nationalist over a nice drink here, we had a good chuckle over how the liberal state is constantly investigating and reinvestigating the crazy Muslims, but it never investigates the den of Dharmic organisations that are doing all sorts of things in Leicester, up to and including acting as the western HQ and funding arm of the Sangh Parivar! Basically being sane and not threatening to kill Britons, will get you far in the world.

[Far-Right Sage]

I realize now that in my comments in response to Clockwork originally, I made a "typo" of sorts when referring to the Vedanta. It is Vaishnavism which emphasizes lord Vishnu's primacy within the Trimurti, so I'm unsure why I felt the need to reference the Upanishads.

I received a call from my daughter-in-law yesterday which raised my spirits a bit and I probably began drinking too early as per usual with this winter darkness.

[Figlio di Moros]

First of all. Sorry if I am derailing the thread, just wanted to wrap my mind around fascism.

No offense taken, I'm sure we can have Fasces split this off if it becomes distracting.

I personally favor an economy like Singapore's which is relatively simple and focused towards productivity through free markers and occasional government intervention and some socialization of services like Health Care and retirement funds.

It's a bit of a misnomer to say they're "free market". Yes, they have a market system, but, while they hit several classical indicators of "laissez-faire", they take swift, subtle influence in their economy- for instance, two-thirds of the businesses are government-owned, and there's mandatory saving's accounts. However, it's worth noting two things about Singapore- 1) they're classified as an illiberal democracy, and 2) None of their economic system would be possible if they were liberal, not the least that it required leaving Lee Kuan Yew in office for decades to ensure the implementation and perpetuation of a unified vision.

I also would favor a more of a republic than a dictaorship...sorta like America without the national voting. I would favor a direct democracy in states, but national issues still within the republic.

Does heoric leadership means dictatorship? Or Just charismatic leadership in government?

There've been many proposals; again, it really depends on your own nation and the people within it. For instance, Organic Democracy is one system w/ direct democracy at the base and a racheting up, so to speak, of officials from one level to the next. There's also the Classical Republic, which is considered "a mixture of Monarchy, Aristocracy, and Democracy"- though, note that an "elected monarch" and "President for life" are defined the same way.

"Heroic leadership", or, more precisely, esoterically-driven leadership, is the principle that the governing class represents an ideal, not interests. For instance, if we selected servicemen, firefighters, EMT's, civil engineers, etc., rather than lawyers and businessmen, we're selecting men guided by principle rather than profits.

[Rei Murasame]

Out of curiosity why is hierarchy inherent and need to be made into the real world to make the universe sentient?

I think you're misreading my post because you are not registering that the H on Hierarchy is a capital letter. The Spiritual Hierarchy include categories like the dead, spirits, the ascended masters, and the gods/aspects.

I'm not sure what the second part of your question means, so I might not be answering it in the way that you wanted, but if you asking me why we have to do this, that is a very big question and I'm not sure that I can explain that in one post without us being here all day.

And what do you mean by global-evolution, it smacks of transhumanism. Do you wish to integrate humanity into a single entity of one mind? :?:

Nothing transhumanist about it.

But your question is one of those things that has been disputed for ages (literally ages) now, and so I can't really comment on that. It is not known whether the universe wants to or could actually 'collapse' all of creation back into itself as one consciousness, but some have speculated that it may surprise humans by doing precisely that after we've played our part, and others have even hoped it would do so, while still others are ambivalent on the issue, and others argue that it should not and will not happen, and others possibly think that it could happen and that it must be prevented.

There's no way that I can know the answer to questions like that, and so I can't really comment or answer on it, or what I personally think about it, it would be irresponsible of me if I did.

[KlassWar]

There've been many proposals; again, it really depends on your own nation and the people within it. For instance, Organic Democracy is one system w/ direct democracy at the base and a racheting up, so to speak, of officials from one level to the next.

That is surprisingly similar to a functioning Soviet Democracy: Workers' committees elect delegates among themselves at the workplace and district level, and workers' representatives nominate delegates to progressively higher committees.

[Sithsaber]

The origins of this bullshit are intriguing. I read alot of theosophical influence in this. Another question i have for this is if the aspects of the Hierarchy would have to come into conflict with each other to determine dominance, which sounds right for a fascist(although this may be against cosmic order, i doubt that a esoteric person who believes that races stem from a determined source (there's another word for archaic and something that can't be broken down further)would also believe that the various heathen gods are just different names for the same beigns). Would this also lead to a interim stasisification of human society and why don't you just skip all of this shit and focus on a transhumanist hive mind?

ps: Another example of the tainting of the magnum opus. This word has stood for many interpretations of the philosopher's stone and the great change, from gold duplication, to Jungian inner journeys to a grand fable of the dark night of the soul and ascendance to the wedding of the lamb (either you absorb all to become an acolyte of Abraxas or you cast off a vile humunculous and become a Metatron)

[Rainbow Crow]

(either you absorb all to become an acolyte of Abraxas or you cast off a vile humunculous and become a Metatron)

This sounds way more interesting than the spiritual punting and misdirection towards the state involved in the "great work." What does this quote mean if anything?

[starman2003]

Atheism is a degenerate ideology not concerned with broader reality or preparing men in the long term for poking holes through to the next level of consciousness and laying the groundwork for the crowning moment of mass self-realization on this planet.

Rejecting the "god" myth is a good start. Atheism is necessary but not sufficient; christianity or other mythology should be replaced by a secular Worldview, instead of aimlessness and degeneracy.

Fascism and atheism are as incompatible as fascism and capitalism, fascism and Marxian socialism, fascism and base individualistic hedonism (libertarianism), etc.

Mussolini himself and many other Italian fascists were atheists. Fascism is the veneration of the State and its embodiment, the Great Man, in the real world. They should not have to compete with a unverified, superfluous i.e. mythical "supreme being."

[Rei Murasame]

Starman, you are going to have to accept at some point that fascism has spiritual element to it. And that is not an addon, but rather, is central to it.

[starman2003]

Starman, you are going to have to accept at some point that fascism has spiritual element to it. And that is not an addon, but rather, is central to it.

Anything which requires nonsense like "god" is not worthwhile. It would be one more reason to write off fascism, and devise a new authoritarian view.