Preston Cole wrote:Depends what you mean by social conservatives. Social conservatism has a stake in fascist social outlook itself, it serves as the basis for later palingenetic developments.
I know that you guys have
some idea of what I mean.
Social conservatives are trying to go right back to some crazy time when life was a caricature of itself, and everyone was weak and comfortable and trimming their hedges in their little suburban box-neighbourhoods, and going to church every Sunday to worship a god that they don't even believe in, a god that - uniquely among gods - demands nothing, accepts anything, and requires no effort, other than of course a stringent adherence to universalist moral outlook and certain sexual mores that have no purpose in any world that we are looking to create.
Even if we suppose that those things were desirable, social conservatives weren't able to stave off degeneration
even when my generation were but mere twinkles in our parents' eyes - and that was when they had the whole country as their playground. Why should should we now lend
them our strength,
our boots,
our blouses,
our socks,
our ties?
All they'll do it try to force the clock back to where they want it to go, keep capitalism exactly as they like it, utilise us as their paras, and then immediately
renounce us as being the devilish force that we are, as soon as something resembling stability emerges, and we'll be stuck outside with no clothes on.
The last 2000 years have been basically a detour away from where we could have been, we picked up some great things along the detour, which can be packed into the bags and taken with us, but there is no time in the last 2000 years where I'd point to and say "let's recreate that exact moment exactly as it was again". That's certainly not fascism's goal, it's supposed to be a radical and revolutionary movement for creating a world that has
never been tried before.
We should try at all times to avoid pandering to social conservatives.
They must change their stances and ideas and come to accept Hegel as reality, and accept Sorel as reality, and accept Guenon as reality, and accept MacGregor-Mathers as reality, etc etc etc.
Social conservatives should admit that social conservatives were
wrong - they should verbally acknowledge that they have essentially been useless - and come to
us and to a New Order developed by us, not the other way around.
They destroyed fascism down to the last person in the 1940s, in the name of capitalism, Jesus of Nazareth, and 'western civilisation'
(see: any number of G.K. Chesterton's anti-fascist rants, C.S. Lewis' rants in the same vein, etc) and then turn around 70 years later to find fascists coalescing a movement again in a post-1968 world and reaching out across the divide to
them so they can march us all back to pre-1968 and do all this again? No, to me that is unacceptable. We should do no reaching out.
There should also be no repeat of the Lateran Treaty or anything resembling the Lateran Treaty, both on principle and because our agenda is anti-Christian and also because they are a weakened religion anyway and we need to put them to rest in the garbage skip - finishing the sacred job that Mazzini didn't get to finish in the 1800s.
We are actually at the point where we
can talk about the true programme and the true objectives without having to compromise with social conservatives. We really can just take it into our own hands and do what we were going to do. Look at the signatures of the people in Iron March - lightning bolts, the black sun, swastikas, the Eye of Horus, etc etc. Unless they are just wearing those sort of symbols as mere stylish badges, they must know that the power of the name of those things and the values they represent,
cannot coexist with Christendom without one subverting and eroding the other.
It's a clash that has to happen and Christianity needs to lose.
I know I'm really going on for a while at this, but it's just I really want to emphasise that the conservatives are not interested in helping us, they are only interested in trying to use us to defend their class interests and their preferred social institutions and Churches. But the fact that anyone is anticipating that there is a future where they might need
us, does not present to me an opportunity to co-operate with any of their ideas - rather it is an opportunity to finally and at last strangle
their society in its moment of weakness, so that at the end, there will only be fascism, total and victorious.
Tribbles wrote:Priests and traditional elements such as royalty are better to lean on than neo-cons.
But we don't actually
need to lean on
any of them, do we? Look at social landscape and tell me why it would make sense to snuggle up with them? They are a
part of the crisis of neoliberalism, they are irrevocably bound up and entangled with it. Let them drown if they want, down to the last priest.