“The so-called 'Left-Hand Path' - that of Kaulas, Siddhas and Viras - combines the... Tantric worldview with a doctrine of the Übermensch which would put Nietzsche to shame... The Vira - which is to say: the 'heroic' man of Tantrism - seeks to sever all bonds, to overcome all duality between good and evil, honor and shame, virtue and guilt. Tantrism is the supreme path of the absolute absence of law - of shvecchacarī, a word meaning 'he whose law is his own will'." ― Julius Evola, The Path of Cinnabar.

“It is necessary to have “watchers” at hand who will bear witness to the values of Tradition in ever more uncompromising and firm ways, as the anti-traditional forces grow in strength. Even though these values cannot be achieved, it does not mean that they amount to mere “ideas.” These are measures…. Let people of our time talk about these things with condescension as if they were anachronistic and anti-historical; we know that this is an alibi for their defeat. Let us leave modern men to their “truths” and let us only be concerned about one thing: to keep standing amid a world of ruins.” ― Julius Evola, Revolt Against the Modern World: Politics, Religion, and Social Order in the Kali Yuga.

“We are born into this time and must bravely follow the path to the destined end. There is no other way. Our duty is to hold on to the lost position, without hope, without rescue, like that Roman soldier whose bones were found in front of a door in Pompeii, who died at his post during the eruption of Vesuvius because someone forgot to relieve him. That is greatness. That is what it means to be a thoroughbred. The honorable end is the one that can not be taken from a man.” ― Oswald Spengler, Man and Technics: A Contribution to a Philosophy of Life.

Saturday, August 16, 2008

JDS: More on Fascism

This is a response to a discussion of one of my previous blogs, "JDS: Fascism While Standing on One Foot" taking place elsewhere:

Regarding my original post, I clearly stated (1) “Beyond a certain point, for people with certain standards and sensibilities, ‘Fascism’ ceases to be a practical political position and becomes a purist-outsider ideology of alienation, which I have come to regard more and more as a sign of integrity.” Followed by, (2) “…there is a fairly consistent value set…” And finally, (3) “This is just off the cuff, in response to an informal inquiry, and not intended to be a formal ‘academic’ outline of Fascism.”

For anyone, being serious about politics means thinking in terms of what can actually be done. Chances of there being a Fascist revolution in the USA are nil. By that I mean Fascist in the actual historical sense of the term rather than the simplistic kneejerk sense of the term applied by people on all sides of the political spectrum to any position they don’t like.

Fascism, or even National Socialism, being entirely beyond the pale of actual possibility in the USA renders them essentially irrelevant beyond the emotional lives of people who imagine themselves to be Fascists or National Socialists in America today. At that very most, Fascism or National Socialism will be an inner reference point, or an evaluational paradigm, from which action within the existing milieu might stem.

I specified FASCIST and VALUE SET because "Fascism" is a broad category only identifiable by recurring themes. The specific political programs of various so-called “Fascist” movements varied greatly according to their time and place. Most people only know Mussolini and Hitler. There were MANY Fascist parties; British Union of Fascists, Silver Shirts, Iron Wolves, Iron Guard, etc. each with their own mission statements.

It is worth noting that many figures of the American “Neo-Nazi” scene, such as George Lincoln Rockwell, Tom Metzger, and David Duke, are actually more or less constitutionalists beyond the question of Racial Nationalism. It is also interesting to note pro-Fascist writing from Ezra Pound and Racial Nationalist Revilo Oliver commenting on some of the similarities between Thomas Jefferson and Mussolini.

There is a huge difference between what I called a “value set” and an actual political agenda. I don’t know if it is available online, but look up the first program of the Fascist Movement from March 19, 1919. It reads like a combination of radical anti-government anarcho-libertarianism but with universal education and health care and a few stipulations against parasitic financial practices. Basically just a different style of mixed economy than what we have now in the USA.

On that note, regarding one of the replies above, read the blog I posted about so-called “Fascist Corporatism”: http://cosmodromium.blogspot.com/2008/05/jds-fascism-corporatism-fdr-and-lbj.html

Interestingly enough I’ve heard people as ideologically far-removed from one another as Noam Chomsky and Ron Paul misuse the term “Fascist Corporatism.”

Regarding the above comments about biological determinism and “equality” – Read up on the Genome Project and cognitive neuroscience, and complexity. Just because the matrix of biological determinism is complex beyond comprehension does not mean some transcendental free will exists. Complexity looks random, there is a difference between the real and the merely apparent.

Although Fascism is non-egalitarian, it was also against class divisions, or at least the stigma of class divisions. “Co-operation” was a keynote of Fascism and National Socialism. No one in their right mind subscribes to the chaos of ABSOLUTE autonomy. It has never existed where there was a community of more than a handful of people and never will. Some form of coordination and cooperation exists among ALL animals that exist together, whether we like it or not.

Of course “nature does not have an ideology”, I never said it did. I may have implied that an ideology is superior for being in tune with nature, not vise versa.

Regarding “collectivism” – it always cracks me up how “individual” people imagine themselves to be while at the same time they are more or less cut from a very limited set of templates. Most people define their “individuality” so-called by the most superficial outward fashion statements; taste in clothes, music, food, etc. while mentally eating from the same troughs as the rest of the piglets. There may be a wide variety of fashion statements available to identify with, but much fewer ideological sets.

For example, how many people define their identity by what they do with their genitals? How many options are there? Oral, Anal, Genital, Manual, Hetero, Homo, Human, Animal, Live, Dead…? How many variations in combination does that add up to? And that is something that doesn’t even matter.

Now consider the human mind. Where do most people around you acquire their information and opinions? The Mainstream Media. You may know a select few who are heavy readers, who might exhibit slightly more variety, but really not much.

Now turn to politics; who are you going to vote for? Liar 1 or Liar 2, working for the same masters. When your paltry little vote is averaged out with the other millions, it is literally less than a piss in the ocean.

And you people are worried about COLLECTIVISM? That ship already fucking sailed!

Look around at how pathetically people express their store-bought pre-packaged “freedom” and “individuality.” What do you really imagine would really be threatened by “collectivism”? They already conform more completely than just about anything Mussolini could dream up. At least he would make them dress better.

Wait, I think I hear the world’s smallest violin playing “Feel Like a Number” by Bob Seger.




Mr. Obsidian said...

Well said, every word of it.

Is this new post in response to those replies on Jack's site, or to replies you've received? I posted my own response on Subversion regarding the frightened posters on Jack's blog and your original essay. It's funny how worked up people get over the "other" F-word.

The more I really consider collectivism, the more I tend to agree with you -- it's irrelevant, and the ship has indeed sailed. Sometimes I tend to apply my disdain for collectivism to the broader system, perhaps neglecting the fact that collectivism is going to exist regardless of governmental or societal machinations, since it is a natural tendency of the human animal.

Still, I prefer the "loose" collectivism we have in the US over the "strict" collectivism of a country like say, North Korea.

The difference to me is that, in the former, collectivism is imposed through societal pressure whereas the latter is imposed through actual force. I think it's an important distinction.

Anonymous said...

I agree withyou on this, especially your point on collectivism. I always had a similar opinion regarding propaganda: people are going to do whatever their TV tells them to anyway, so we might as well put it to some use.