A RECONSTRUCTIVE REVOLUTION
PUBLISHED: 29th December, 2019 | By Richard Heathen
In the modern world, the term Fascism is much maligned. It is used as a catch-all term for anything perceived as ‘oppressive’ (according to the standards of of our modern sensibilities), and often as a synonym for totalitarianism, itself a myth of the post-World-War-II global order (we will return to the myth of totalitarianism later). However Fascism is best understood as a different way of being as compared to the dominant ideologies today, complete with its own system of ethics, vision of life, view of the world. It rejects both liberalism (along with its ideological variants, which include but are not limited to libertarianism, neoliberalism, classical liberalism, anarcho-capitalism, etc.) and Marxism.
The liberal view of the world is that of a global marketplace, with each individual unbound from all external duties and obligations. It is a vision of life that seeks the liberation of the individual from all outer fetters through the pursuit of resources and sensual pleasure for its own sake. It sees the warrior ethos of duty and authority as anachronistic at best, and at worst, as a dangerous and brutal philosophy that desires to oppress those free individuals who seek their own rational self interest – which, it is believed for some reason, will lead to a better world where material comforts will be available to all. Liberalism opposes aristocracy, class, monarchy – anything traditional which might stymie the individual – and it does so no matter how long the tradition, or how well it has served.
This view sees freedom in a purely negative and externalized way. Its purveyors care not how this so-called liberty is to be used, only that a man may have it. This ideology is connected to a specific way of life – the lifestyle, ethics, and all around vision of life of the merchant, of the bourgeoisie. Thus liberalism represents a specific way of life, for a very specific type of man, with a very specific nature.
Liberal thinkers assure us that we can be happy with mere material abundance, that there is no greater meaning or mission of life than acquisition, nor should their be. We should be focusing on working for some soulless corporation eighty hours a week in order to hoard enough capital that we can maximize our consumption. Instead of being decisive actors in history, we should just engage in commerce.
They believe that ‘rational self-interest’ guides the choices of men: if a man is given two choices, he will naturally choose the one that is the most economically advantageous. They believe that, through economic cooperation, people can always construct win/win scenarios, whereby working together through negotiation, men will always come to an understanding and be better off than they would be if they were to come into conflict.
The problem with this worldview is that it focuses solely on the economic and material; it thus denies the existence of zero-sum games, situations in which there can be no win/win, and where economics is not a factor. For example religious wars: the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is a zero-sum game, because both sides have a mutually exclusive claim on a territory, and both insist upon their rights for historical and religious reasons.
Liberalism also licenses all manner of self-destructive and anti-civilizational behaviour. Under the banner of ‘individual freedom’, liberals advocate the allowance of behaviour producing negative externalities, many of which are disastrous when the costs are imposed on society on a mass scale by millions of people, whether in the form of drug use, high rates of single motherhood, broad employment of foreign labour or any of the other anti-social behaviours produced by this attitude.
This vision of freedom is cold, and extremely cynical. How exactly does one define such a ‘freedom’ or ‘liberty’? Certainly, one might call a heroin addict ‘free’, if he is allowed to pursue his base instincts and engage in his heroin addiction without any outside coercion. As long as he is not hurting anyone else, and can fund his habit himself, what right does anyone have to get involved and tell him how to live his life? According to liberalism this man is a free individual, able to make his own choices, even if they are manifestly bad ones. But is he truly free? Or is he merely subject to a more insidious form of slavery? Is violent intervention really such an injustice in cases like this?
A Fascist view of freedom or liberty is much different. By a Fascist view, freedom is self-mastery. It is the ability to act with agency, forcing oneself to do things that are hard, and that in many cases one does not want to do, but to do so without the inner resistance so common to people in the modern world. But most importantly, freedom is the ability to manifest one’s will in the world. For the Fascist, discipline is freedom. Strength is freedom. Intelligence and truth are freedom. Therefore, a polity that creates the optimum environment for self-actualization through discipline and through educating men to face trying ordeals is the most free.
This is completely at odds with the ‘live and let live’ idea of freedom expressed in bourgeois societies.
The liberal bourgeois vision of life has been dominant since the end of the Second World War, especially since the end of the Cold war, and if we look around us we see a world in decay. Despite ever-growing technology to connect us, people have become more disconnected from each other, ever more alienated in a world of consumerism and hyper-individualism.
One could argue that we have become so disconnected from the organic meaning of life, so isolated, that we have entered the age of the post-individual, having become disconnected even from ourselves.
Our experiences are increasingly shifting from the real world to cyberspace, where our experiences are virtual. We live our lives vicariously, as disconnected and isolated nodes on vast electronic networks in an unchartable digital space, floating in a false yet personalized reality, custom-made to our biases and preferences. Here we find the product of liberalism taken to its nth degree. This is the logical and inevitable conclusion of a world where bourgeois morality reigns supreme. And this disconnect with the real world will continue at an indefinite acceleration as we speed towards the transhumanist dream, moving ever further from both our humanity and any conception of an organic meaning of life.
Then we have Marxism, which represents the morality of the faceless mass. The moral code of Marxism is represented by the greatest good for the greatest number. The Marxist vision of life seeks to level all hierarchies. Where liberalism destroyed monarchies and aristocracies in favour of plutocracy veiled as democracy, appealing to universal suffrage and the rights of the individual man to perform its destructive work, Marxism takes the levelling instincts of liberalism to their logical conclusion. Marxism, also called ‘collectivism’, demands absolute egalitarianism in every aspect of life. Bringing everyone down to the level of the lowest common denominator. This is the instinct of the proletariat, the mob, the peasant or the slave. But we are speaking of the most savage of the social classes. One has only to look at the history of slave rebellions to ascertain as much. Whether it be the Reign of Terror and the September Massacre during the French Revolution or the Red Terror of the Bolshevik Revolution, the slave revolt in Haiti or the Cultural Revolution in China, slave revolts have always proved the most vicious and bloody of any kind of uprising, as they represents the unleashing of the most primal appetites by the most savage elements of society.
In the early twentieth century, the urban industrial worker represented this class, along with the moral perspective and vision of life that goes along with his special social role. However, after the Cold War, when capitalism prevailed over communism as the ruling ideology of modernity, class consciousness gave way to consumerism, and the workers ceased to be the agents of revolution; thus the forces of global subversion had to find a new agent for revolution, a neo-proletariat. Leftist ideologues had discovered that, when it came down to it, the working classes of Western Civilization would rally to the defence of their nations, remaining true to their organic roots of blood and soil, and that very few would take up arms in the cause of global revolution.
"When the call came, the worker, whom Marx declared to have no Fatherland, identified himself with country, not class. He turned out to be a member of the national family like anyone else. The force of his antagonism which was supposed to topple capitalism found a better target in the foreigner. The working class went to war willingly, even eagerly, like the middle class, like the upper class…"
It was out of this discovery that a new proletariat was found in women, racial minorities, homosexuals, transsexuals, etc. So the leftist agents of global subversion began peddling degeneracy, depravity and masochism to lift up and to venerate what had once been reviled.
While liberalism and Marxism seem on the surface to be enemies, they are really the same force of decay manifested at different times and in different ways. Liberalism is the early stage; it erodes the traditional order. It levels the traditional hierarchy of crown and aristocracy. Liberalism paves the way for Marxism. The liberals of the French Revolution paved the way for the proto-Marxists of the Reign of Terror. The liberal conspirators against the Tsar in the February Revolution in Russia paved the way for the Bolshevik Revolution that October. In every Western nation the popularization of Marxist ideology was preceded by liberalism, which eroded the traditional order and the traditional morality, all in the name of ‘progress’ and the ‘individual’.
Today we see these two forces joining together openly now that their mission of destruction is almost complete. International finance and the corporate world embrace and promote the neo-Marxist ideology of the neo-proletariate. They stand ‘in solidarity’ with the sexual degenerate, who would have rightfully been ostracized in a healthier and more vital age. The official transmissions of the system glorify sickness and weakness. As in a dystopian novel, they condemn and revile any and all healthy impulses, and instead demand that we all become as morally bankrupt, sickly, weak, and mad as their pets, whom they use to consolidate power.
Liberal capitalism and global collectivism are working hand in hand: this represents the domination of the world by the merchant and slave classes.
The solution then is a revolt of the warrior class.
In the aftermath of the First World War, a new class of men rose up to oppose the roaming communist/socialist bands that were threatening to unleash, all over Europe, the same chaos that was laying waste to Russia. In the words of right-wing philosopher Julius Evola:
"It is well known where and under what symbols the forces for a possible resistance tried to organize. On one side, a nation that, since it had been unified, had known nothing but the mediocre climate of liberalism, democracy, and a constitutional monarchy, dared to assume the symbol of Rome as the basis for a new political conception and a new ideal of virility and dignity. Analogous forces awoke in the nation that in the Middle Ages had made the Roman symbol of imperium its own in order to reaffirm the principle of authority and the primacy of those values that are rooted in the blood, race, and the deepest powers of a stock. And while in other European nations, groups were already orienting themselves in the same direction, a third force in Asia joined the ranks, the nation of the samurai, in which the adoption of the outer forms of modern civilization had not prejudiced its fidelity to a warrior tradition centred upon the symbol of the solar empire of divine right…"
This indeed, as Evola states it, was the story of the Second World War. Evola believed that civilization incrementally transformed from one where spiritual principles of transcendence and hierarchy were central, to one based on warrior ethos, eventually moving to one where bourgeois morality reigned supreme. With the rise of Bolshevism, he believed the West was moving towards a society in which the morality of the slave or proletariat, the lowest of all castes, was going to prevail. Evola saw each of these steps as a devolution, a degradation of civilization, and thus saw Fascism as a movement that perhaps could halt, and maybe even reverse, the degradation, by reorienting society towards the virtues of the warrior.
The movement started in Italy when veterans of the First World War rallied around a former socialist, Benito Mussolini, and formed the Fasci d’Azione Rivoluzionaria, later the Fasci Italiani di Combattimento, roughly translated into English as the League of Revolutionary Action and the Italian League of Combat respectively, to route out and fight the Marxists who were attempting to usher in a communist revolution.
Mussolini himself was inspired by Gabriele D’Annunzio, a famous poet and adventurer who lead a squadron of Arditi, an elite special force of the Royal Italian Army, to occupy the city of Fiume in 1919. At the end of the First World War it had been presumed Fiume was to be awarded to Italy on account of the city’s predominantly Italian speaking population. But the Allied Powers reneged on many of their contractual obligations under the secret Treaty of London of 1915, which was used to entice Italy into abandoning her alliance with Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire and joining the war on the side of the Allies. D’Annunzio felt that this was an injustice and a blow against the national pride of the Italian nation, even though the liberal government had no desire to press their claims over either Fiume or any of the territories owed to them by the Treaty of London. So D’Annunzio lead 2,000 Arditi and conquered the city with ease. He and his men ruled the city for fifteen months, in which time he pioneered the Fascist style, bringing back the Roman salute and making dramatic speeches, and he even used the title ‘leader’ (duce) for his position, something that would be copied by Fascist leaders going forward.
Inspired by the warrior poet, Mussolini gathered war veterans and routed the Marxists from their strongholds, countered them at every turn, besting them in street battle. The Fascists eventually defeated the Marxist threat, and Mussolini took power when he lead his men on the infamous March on Rome.
It wasn’t just Marxism the Fascists were opposing, however; they also opposed the existing liberal order which had proved so ineffective in the face of naked Marxist aggression. Fascism opposed international finance and rule by money, and put forth a fundamentally different vision of the world than the economico-centricity of both Marxism and liberalism. It posits a view of life that is inherently spiritual and metaphysical in its orientation.
"Fascism is an eminently idealistic and, more specifically, an anti-materialistic and anti-individualistic philosophy of life. These characteristics are clearly expressed by the recognition of the eternal value of the spiritual essence of man and of the transitory aspect of his earthly being… He who thinks of Fascism and its worth thinks, primarily and above all, of what Fascism stands for in the realm of the spirit; of its contribution to man’s spiritual heritage."
Fascism fundamentally rejects the notion of the primacy of the individual. While it is true that traditional European culture is more individualistic then other cultures, for example the Oriental, this was always balanced out by the codes of honour and duty, endemic to that Indo-European warrior culture from which all the modern nations of Europe descend.Instead of principles of non-aggression or voluntarism, the Fascist abides by principles that are essentially martial in nature: namely principles of Duty, Authority, and Unity. These principles guide the Fascist’s actions in every aspect of life.
In the principle of Duty, the Fascist is bound by his inherited obligations, whether it be to family, caste, nation or empire. The Fascist recognizes himself as only one part of an organic whole, not only societally but also chronologically. He knows that he has a role to play not only in the here and now, but as a placeholder in time. He owes his life and existence to the thousands of generations that came before him and recognizes his obligation not only to preserve the health and prestige of his family, nation or Imperium, but to expand upon it, to hand off something greater to the next generation. This understanding stands in direct contradiction to the liberal worldview, with its belief that an individual should have no positive unchosen obligations, that the individual should be free to pick and choose all his attachments and obligations.
The Fascist aligns himself with the ancient world when he acknowledges the principle of Authority. In a Fascist order, the leader should be the highest man, the greatest man among great men. In this way his authority is earned and unquestioned. This is the concept of hero as leader, in a society in which all men should strive to be the leader, to endlessly pursue discipline and self-actualization. If the greatest man in the land, the national hero, leads a nation, how can such a leader not be seen as closer to the divine than most men? How can his leadership be seen as anything other than an expression of divine providence itself? The Roman Emperor was thought to be a manifestation of divinity on Earth. In the Medieval Age, the divine right of kings reigned; the king had his authority because it was believed that God had willed it so.
In this way Fascism represents a return to a traditional order. The hero as leader represents a shining example, an ideal toward which all men should strive.
The principle of Unity represents another of the Fascist martial virtues. In Unity we are compelled to let go of petty grudges and work together for a higher cause. Just as a platoon of soldiers will not long survive in war if they are bickering amongst themselves instead of working together, a polity will be gravely weakened if the various limbs of the body politic tear at one another in constant conflict. Thence the innovation of the total state in the first half of the twentieth century.
What is the purpose of the total state?
Commenters of liberal background have accused Fascist regimes of being wholly modernist in their conceptions, claiming that they owe their view of statecraft and the world to Thomas Hobbs and his idea of the Leviathan. This is a wholly inaccurate and reductionist point of view. It only examines the surface and not the root, the cause or context, of Fascism.
Fascism represents the manifestation of a new way of life, largely unknown and unrealized in the modern world. The Fascist revolutions were an ongoing process that actually represented a profound cultural and spiritual revolution, a counter-revolution meant to undo the liberal, Marxist, and proto-Marxist revolutions. This was unfortunately a process that never was able to fulfill itself, but the total state was the means toward that end.
The total state was the social innovation through which the Fascist cultural and spiritual revolution was to perpetuate itself. This is why the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP) brought all civil institutions within its sphere of influence; it was working to replace the decadent bourgeois spirit and culture with a vitalist view of life, compatible with the warrior caste. The total state was not just some invention for the blind pursuit of power by crazed madmen who lusted after power for its own sake. No: the goal was to remake society and reorientate it to be compatible with the spiritual imperatives of the warrior class. The goal of the regime was not to crassly impose its will on the people, but to convert and change them. This is why the National Socialist regime, far from imposing its will with force on every and all occasions, often acquiesced to the people when it had moved too fast with its cultural and spiritual revolution.
The NSDAP played a game of push and pull with the population, trying to rebuild German culture and, with it, the German people. Part of the National Socialist cultural revolution in Germany was the incremental suppression of church influence in private life, with the goal of an eventual replacement of Christianity with the National Socialist ideology, and perhaps a new volkish religion.
"In the long run, the church question, is a question of the young people. The less the parents opposition is aroused on church matters, the less they will inculcate in their children an opposition to the teachings of the Hitler Youth. The school system could hardly be changed faster than the people themselves."
— Rudolf Hess
The National Socialist regime saw the sectarian divides between Catholicism and the various denominations of Protestantism as a dividing force among the German people. To the end of uniting the Germans, while marginalizing the influence of the churches in Germany, the NSDAP spearheaded a number of changes that they eventually had to back away from in the face of popular mobilization by the people. Instead of forcing their reforms through with violence, the Party, particularly Hitler, took the popular reaction as a sign that they were moving too fast with their cultural revolution, and relented. This is because, far from wanting to force an ideological programme, Hitler truly wanted to convert Germans to his way of thinking. He not only wanted to rebuild the German nation, but the German people as well. He wanted to purify and strengthen Germans, much in line with Nietzsche’s concept of the superman, using a combination of positive eugenics, social engineering through inculcation of National Socialism and the construction of a new national mythology, as well as the tearing down of all sectarian barriers between the German people, thus creating a unified national community (Volksgemeinschaft) which was united by a common world outlook and common German racial stock.
In Italy, the Fascist revolution manifested as a cultural and national renaissance. The Italian Fascist Party, lead by Benito Mussolini, spearheaded a national revival determined on recapturing the glory of ancient Rome. Fascism brought Italy into the twentieth century, making a once-backwater nation into a European power, restoring both pride and prestige to the Italian people.
"When Mussolini came to power in 1922, Italy had a rich cultural heritage, but financially and politically it was what we call today a ‘third world country’. By the 1930s Italy had a European presence. Mussolini saw to the draining of the Pontine Marshes around Rome, which had been a source of malaria since antiquity. … Farmers worked on the recovered land and villages and small towns were constructed there. This and similar projects restored millions of acres of arable land. They were part of Mussolini’s ‘wars’ for the lira, wheat, country life and population that aimed at giving Italy greater control over its destiny. The positive effects on national morale surpassed its economic success, which was not, however, insignificant. From 1925 to 1935 grain production grew significantly, and the importing of foreign grain dropped by 75%. The crushing national debt was renegotiated from short-term to long-term loans. Servicing the domestic debts went from 28 billion lire a year, to 6 billion. …
There were also public works projects in addition to the rural initiatives. In Rome, subways and new roads to the Coliseum and the Vatican were constructed to ease traffic congestion. (Rome’s two subway lines built under Fascism are still the only active ones.) A large sports complex, the Foro Mussolini, was built for the 1940 Olympics (which was cancelled because of the war). It still houses the soccer stadium on the site of the Italian Tennis Open. This train system was electrified and train stations built in the major cities. Not only did ‘the trains run on time’, but their journey times were reduced significantly. (The travel time from Rome to Syracuse was cut in half.) Again the question of morale was as significant as the measurable results. The Italian people felt that things were happening in areas of their national life where nothing had been accomplished ‘since Tiberius’ time’."
However, the Fascist revolution wasn’t limited to making material improvements alone; it also sought a cultural renaissance, by reviving a link to its deep historical roots. By reviving the symbols of Ancient Rome, Italian Fascism declared itself the successor of the ancient Roman Empire, claiming its prestige and heritage as its rightful inheritance.
"There was also a cultural side of Fascism. By its restoration of the ancient Roman fasces, Fascism proclaimed Italy’s ancient traditions. It sponsored archaeological projects to uncover the Roman past from the republican temples at Largo Argentina in Rome to excavations at Ostia and Libya. The great Ara Pacis of the Emperor Augustus was recovered from beneath the streets of downtown Rome and, following negotiations with the Vatican for parts preserved there, was restored and displayed near the Tiber, where it can still be seen. But it was not only ancient art that Fascism encouraged. There was a national movie industry in Cinecitta outside Rome… writers like Pirandello, D’Annuzio and Marinetti were honoured. Italy’s great past was linked to a creative present and future."
The Italian Fascist Party also did not aim for a cultural renaissance alone, however. Like their German contemporaries, the Fascists wanted a cultural revolution. They wanted rapid and dramatic change, away from the decadent individual morality of bourgeois society, towards a more holistic and vitalist philosophy. They viewed liberal democratic morality as weak, decadent, and unnatural.
"Fascism rejects the concept of an economic happiness which is to be, at a given moment in the evolution of economy, socialistically and almost automatically realized by assuring to all the maximum of well being. Fascism denies the possibilities of a materialistic concept of happiness. It leave that to the economists at the first half of the 18th century, that is it denies the equation well being=happiness which sees in men mere animals, content when they can feed and fatten, thus reducing them to a vegetative existence pure and simple.
The principle that society exists only for the welfare and freedom of the individuals composing it does not seem to conform with the plans of nature, plans in which the species only is taken into consideration and the individual appears sacrificed. It is strongly to be feared that the last word of democracy thus understood … would be a social state in which a degenerated mass would have no preoccupation beyond that of enjoying the ignoble pleasures of the vulgar person."
They also sought to create a ‘new man’, who, instead of viewing the purpose of life as vegetative consumption, saw life as a constant struggle for self-actualization. They disregarded utopian ideas of perpetual progress or the end of history, whether in the liberal or Marxist context.
"Fascism, wants man to be active and engaged in action with all his energies. It wants him to possess a manly awareness of the difficulties facing him and to be ready to confront them head on. It conceives of life as a struggle in which man is called upon to conquer for himself a truly worthy place, first of all by fashioning himself (physically, morally, intellectually) into the instrument required for achieving victory…. Fascism, in short, is not only a law-giver and a founder of institutions, but an educator and a promoter of spiritual life. It aims at rebuilding not only the forms of life but their content — man, his character, and his faith. To achieve this purpose it enforces discipline and uses authority, entering into the soul and ruling with undisputed sway…"
In pursuit of creating the Fascist ‘new man’, the Italian Fascists, as well as securing a monopoly on education, and promoting pro-Fascist art and culture, also started a youth faction of the Fascist Party, the Opera Nazionale Balilla, later renamed the Gioventù Italiana del Littorio. This organization claimed a monopoly on youth organization, and therefore banned all other groups, except for the Catholic Action youth group, which was exempted as a concession with the Vatican, pursuant to the Lateran Accord between the Vatican and the Fascist state.
Unlike the National Socialist regime in Germany, the Fascists embraced the Catholic Church and Christianity, using support from the Pope and his cardinals as a means of legitimizing Fascism to the Catholic majority in Italy. Mussolini even made Catholicism the official religion of Italy, ending the long stand-off between the Vatican and the Italian state, after the forceful annexation of the Papal States in 1870. The Lateran Treaty, along with the ongoing support of the Catholic Church, did much to legitimize the Fascist State.
Had the Fascist culturo-spiritual revolution been permitted to run its course, I think it very likely that the total state would have loosened in its control of civil society. Just as laws naturally become more lax in a high-trust society with low crime, once the culturo-spiritual revolution had been completed and an order based on a warrior ethos and vision of life had emerged, the utility of a monopoly over civil society would have been greatly reduced; in fact such a monopoly would likely have become redundant and burdensome. Civic organizations would have slowly but surely drifted back into their own sphere as the cultural transformation came to its completion and the total state fulfilled its purpose in the cultural sphere. While still authoritarian, the social order would have became an organic whole, and society would have come to be governed by the higher discipline and order of the warrior state. A higher standard of conduct and dignity would have become the new social norm, and so the bar for social conduct would have been set equivalently higher, and reciprocally enforced by each member of society. Those who failed to do so would have had to answer to their fellow man, and the need for state enforcement would have been largely reduced as a consequence.
Of course, to the liberal reader, all of this will sound insufferably totalitarian, so we must now address the myth of totalitarianism mentioned earlier.
The myth of totalitarianism is a fairytale spun by the propagandists of this modern age. Every system of government to exist now or ever to exist has an official ideology or metapolitical narrative from which it derives its legitimacy, as well as its perception of morality, customs, and norms. That ideology justifies not only the existing political order, but also the position of those who hold power. In the post-World-War-II international order, that legitimacy comes primarily from the defeat of the Axis Powers. From a historical analysis emphasizing and exaggerating the brutality of the Axis Powers, while sweeping the brutality of the Allies under the rug, the Western intelligentsia, has created a narrative of the ‘good’ war, justifying the existing international and social order of the Western powers.
Any ruling class will punish actions, agitation, and behaviour that runs counter to, and threatens the stability of, its ideology; it will do so sometimes in small ways, sometimes in more extreme ways. It is therefore no surprise that the current system would ruthlessly punish anyone attempting to undermine its official ideology, as this kind of metapolitical warfare is a direct threat to the legitimacy of the ruling clique. This is why states will punish one set of dissidents more than others. Some dissidents are merely political critics; while they act against the system, they do so in such a way that does not challenge its ideological foundation, nor the narrative supporting its legitimacy. On the other hand, other types of dissidents are so radical that their very existence is a fundamental refutation of the moral and ethical justification of the system itself. These pose a much greater threat, and will be dealt with more seriously.
The dominant culture today is no less ‘totalitarian’ with its speech codes, diversity quotas, and ‘human rights’ than this portrait suggests. They allow no more true dissent than the Gestapo agents of the Third Reich. There is no private sphere in today’s world into which one can retreat to escape today’s democratic regime of human rights. One may not make any private civil society organization that flouts the moral commandments of the official ideology of the system. To be sure, one can have a private club that simply gathers in a private home; but the moment attempt is made to incorporate this group or bring it in any practically meaningful sense within the public sphere, it will come under attack by the ideological enforcers of the current social order.
If such an organization were to defy the humanistic moral code dictated by today’s system it risks being brought before a prejudicial judiciary so ideologically uncompromising that it would rival the caricatures drawn of Fascist courts. In many nations, to give but a single example of the current limitations, such organizations may not possess standards of membership which prohibit entry to the well-established protected classes of the neo-proletariat, nor may they say or publish things that offend individuals who are members of said protected classes.
If a man is exposed as holding the wrong beliefs, his life will likely be ruined. He can be unceremoniously stripped of his livelihood and he will be ejected from polite society. This in automatic response to the outcry of fanatical mobs acting as ideological shock troops, weaponizing histrionics and agitation against their political enemies. A man ostracized for believing the wrong things will not even be permitted to gather with like-minded individuals in a public space. Any attempt to do so will provoke the aforementioned mobs. They will not be punished; if you attempt to defend yourself, however, you will be.
Beyond that, if the system discovers any political dissident working in the political sphere, its ideological agents (aka ‘activists’) will target this figure, and those within the system will make sure he is dealt with severely. When an Antifa operative, Eric Clanton attacked right-wing activists with a bike lock on a chain, causing bodily injury in several people, and was charged with four counts of felony assault with a deadly weapon, he was given a slap on the wrist in the form of three-year probation.
In comparison, people on the dissident right have been systemically targeted by the powers that be. Members of the Rise Above Movement have been indicted on charges of crossing state lines in order to incite or participate in a riot, for simply defending themselves when they were attacked by leftist agitators while attending the infamous rally in Charlottesville in 2017. The Charlottesville rally was meant to protest the removal of a Confederate monument. Violence broke out when the police were ordered by the mayor’s office to stand down, breaking the agreement the police had made with event organizers to keep the peace and contain left-wing ‘counter-protesters’. Their inaction allowed violence to break out when leftist agitators attacked the event attendees. When the police eventually did intervene they declared the event an ‘unlawful assembly’ and ordered the event attendees to leave. All of this, despite the fact the organizers had a permit and a court order overturning the dictates of Charlottesville City officials to shutdown the event, or have it moved. This was an intentional strategy to get the event shut down. According to an independent investigation by Hunton & Williams, an independent law firm based out of Richmond VA,
"Chief Thomas’s response to the increasing violence on Market Street was disappointingly passive. Captain Lewis and Chief Thomas’ personal assistant Emily Lantz both told us that upon the first signs of open violence on Market Street, Chief Thomas said ‘let them fight, it will make it easier to declare an unlawful assembly."
The police then funnelled the event attendees into the crowd of counter-protesters, which action caused the violence that day. Despite being the aggressors, none of the leftist agitators, to the best of my knowledge, were ever charged. Certainly none of the so-called ‘counter protesters’ were charged with crossing state lines in order to incite or participate in a riot. Only the attendees from the dissident right had these charges brought against them.
This is, of course, because the leftists represent the ideology of the system. These leftists and their various branches, funded by the bourgeois moneyed class, have been engaging in their own cultural revolution, slowly working to overthrow the bourgeois order, using an alliance of ascendant neo-proletarians as so many blunt tools to consolidate their power, much like Mao Zedong mobilized the youth during the cultural revolution in China, as a weapon against his political enemies.
As the neo-proletariat rises, so do the values of the slave. While the international economic system is still dominated by finance capital, the proletarianization of general society is well underway, and victimhood is now worn like a badge of honour. Leftist groups are now beginning to conflict with one another, competing with each other as to whose members have been most victimized. The idealization of mass appeal is becoming ever more pronounced. The coalition of the neo-proletariat is climbing ever higher on the social latter, as can be seen from a variety of signs, be it the normalization of the mental illness known as transgenderism, or the ever more non-whites entering positions of power under the banner of ‘diversity’. Every institution at every level of society is seeing ever greater numbers of neo-proletarians enter its ranks. Even the royal family of England betrays as much; Meghan Markle, a mixed-race American divorcee, has married Prince Henry of the British Royal family, and happens to be three years his senior. This represents the dissolution of several traditional standards.
All of this is the result of a cultural revolution by the united forces of global subversion, the agents of the capitalist and proletarian classes. This revolution is only the latest push in a steady decline that roughly began during the French and American Revolutions.
It has infected every aspect of our culture, and has proved remarkably self-perpetuating. People are indoctrinated into it from childhood through constant repetition of carefully chosen vocabulary and mantras. Those who see beyond the obvious falsehood of it all are incentivized to go along to get along, lest they end up like those discussed above, made into examples for daring to defy the ideology of the system.
Education in our late Western World has been systematically designed to inculcate the ideology of the system as aggressively and as uncompromisingly as any Fascist state. The German National Socialists would marvel, not only at how efficiently and completely our masters of so-called education are able to indoctrinate children into the system’s ideology, but also at the speed at which this system, through a cultural revolution of its own, was able to completely reverse and invert tremendously long-standing social norms, such as the taboo against homosexuality and transgenderism. In the course of mere decades, individuals once regarded as sexual deviant outcasts have been transformed into brave role models deserving of praise and emulation.
From the delegitimization of Christianity to the new orthodoxy on race, the ruling clique have solidified their power through a complete overhaul of previously held norms, along with the formation of a coalition of ‘victimized’ groups, using neo-Marxism as a banner under which to rally their unlikely coalition. This alliance of purported outcasts and underdogs easily transforms into the most zealous advocate of the system itself, for its members intuitively understand that that system is responsible for their elevation in status, and fear that, should the system collapse, they would go back to their previous station.
The end goal is a global society and the ‘end of history’, as most recently heralded by Francis Fukuyama. This represents the utopian aim of liberalism and Marxism, both of which believe in eventual achievement of heaven on Earth and an end to the unfolding of the violent upheavals of history. They envision a bright future in which human beings will be as house pets, free to consume and pursue mindless amusements. While this is sold as a dream, if the modern day is any indication, it will be the ultimate nightmare.
This view of inevitable utopia is at odds with the Fascist vision of time and space:
"Fascism rejects the absurd conventional falsehood of political equity, the habit of collective responsibility, and the myth of indefinite progress and happiness."
Fascist philosophy understands the rise and inevitable decline of high cultures. This concept was detailed in length in Decline of the West by German philosopher Oswald Spengler. Spengler’s work had an immense impact on all Fascist thinkers in the first half of the twentieth century, from the leader of the British Union of Fascists, Oswald Mosley, to Benito Mussolini himself. Spengler’s work underlined the impetus for the Fascist projects. Fascism represents a stand against the forces of decay and decline in its heralding of a return to the martial virtues and vitalism of earlier ages. These were ages when life was not a question to be solved, when the continuation of our nations and traditions was not up for debate. Ages where the very idea of apologizing or ‘being sorry’ for the victories and conquering spirit of our forefathers would not have been so much as imagined as a legitimate attitude, much less embraced as the moral norm. Fascism represents the healthy and natural urge to hold the forces of chaos at bay and to establish a cultural and spiritual Renaissance, by declaring war on both the agents of global subversion, and the culture of weakness and decay which they tow in their wake.
"[I]f [Fascism] can be considered not as an outward display of sensational aspects, but as an inward message of [a] new philosophy of life – that philosophy of life that is to take the place of our glorified and, nevertheless, so poignantly unsatisfactory because so brutally destructive, Individualism – it is then still possible that the prophesied ‘Decline of the West’ may be definitely halted and, in its stead, we may witness the birth of a new and greater Renaissance."
Fascism was born out of the chaos of the post-WWI era, and thus at its inception gathered together many contradictory elements, such as populism and elitism. This can be seen on the one hand as the brotherhood of the warrior class that fought together in the trenches, and on the other the innate desire to institute legitimate authority based on warrior and martial principles.
While Fascism can be seen as a revolt against secularism and modernity, it itself was partially secular, and harboured elements of modernity with it. A passage from ‘The Doctrine of Fascism’ is worth quoting here:
"Monarchical absolutism is a thing of the past, and so is the worship of the church power. Feudal privileges and division into impenetrable castes with no connection between them are also have beens…"
Indeed, many Fascist contemporaries were very concerned with those aspects of the revolution which appeared to their eyes too modern and progressive. If the Fascist revolution had been able to fulfil itself, however, it is very likely that it would have been purified, and the higher transcendent aspects would have prevailed against the elements within it that contradicted its inner imperative.
"No one claims that there was a very clear discrimination between the essential and the accessory in these currents, that in them the idea was confronted by people of high quality who understood it, or that various influences arising from the very forces that had to be combatted had been overcome. The process of ideological purification would have taken place at a later time, once some immediate and unavoidable political problems had been resolved. But even so it was clear that a marshalling of forces was taking shape, representing an open challenge to ‘modern’ civilization…"
Thus, after the invasion of Abyssinia, the Italian Fascist Party did pass legislation regarding race. It sought to preserve the distinction between indigenous Italians and their North African subjects. The preservation of this distinction can be seen as fitting the mould of the Indian caste system. The Fascist state also created an honoured place for the Catholic Church within its fledgling society, providing both prestige and status for the Church and her agents.
Fascism fought against the forces of decay and subversion, against the degradation of national life caused by both the agitation of the proletariat and the indifference and paralyzing decadence of the bourgeoisie. Through pure instinct, Fascists fought against the forces that were degrading the dignity of their nations, and have continued to do so ever since the end of the Second World War. Against the unbridled liberty of the individual, they brought authority. Against the levelling concept of egalitarianism, they brought hierarchy. Against class warfare, they brought unity. Against rule by money, they brought the heroic ideal, as exemplified on the battlefield. Against every degrading instinct of the modern world, they brought the diametric opposite. It was, and still can be, as Evola suggests, a reconstructive revolution:
"Fascism appears to us as a reconstructive revolution, in that it affirms an aristocracy and spiritual concept of the nation, as against both socialist and internationalist collectivism and the democratic and demagogic notion of the nation. In addition, its scorn for the economic myth and its election of the nation in practice to the degree of ‘warrior nation’, marks positively the first degree of this reconstruction, which is to re-subordinate the values of the ancient casts of the ‘merchants’ and the ‘slaves’ to the values of the immediately higher caste. The next step would be the spiritualization of the warrior principle itself."
It is possible that under the banner of such a Fascism, the men of the West might once again find their dignity and their strength, enough to finally exorcise – both the degrading instincts that pervade our nations, and the forces of chaos that permeate the international system. If we are to prevail, it will be through a philosophy of vitality, unity, hierarchy, and authority.
This article was originally published at Arktos Journal in three parts linked below
1 Barbara Tuchman, The Proud Tower: A Portrait of the World Before the War: 1890–1914, page 462
2 Julius Evola, A Traditionalist Confronts Fascism (Arktos Media Ltd, 2015).
3 Mario Palmieri, The Philosophy of Fascism, The Dante Alighieri Society, 1936.
4 Link for source on the Hitler and the NSDAP’s concessions: https://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Compromises-Coercion-Consensus-Germany-ebook/dp/B01HM3A6YC
5 E. Christian Kopff, ‘Introduction’ to Julius Evola’s Fascism Viewed From The Right (Arktos Media Ltd, 2013).
7 Benito Mussolini, ‘The Doctrine of Fascism’ (1932).
9 Raguso, Emilie. ‘Eric Clanton takes 3-year probation deal in Berkeley rally bike lock assault case’, Berkeleyside.
10 ‘The Trump appointee who’s putting white supremacists in jail’, Washington Post.
11 Final Report: Independent Review Of The 2017 Protest Events In Charlottesville, Virginia.
12 Frank Dikötter, The Cultural Revolution: A People’s History, 1962–1976 (Bloomsbury Press, 2017).
13 Benito Mussolini, ‘The Doctrine of Fascism’ 1932.
14 Mario Palmieri, The Philosophy of Fascism, The Dante Alighieri Society, 1936.
15 Benito Mussolini, ibid.
16 Julius Evola, A Traditionalist Confronts Fascism (Arktos Media Ltd., 2015).
17 Julius Evola, The Metaphysics of War (Arktos Media Ltd., 2011).
FOR A NEW FASCISM IS THE SECOND FULL LENGTH DOCUMENTARY FILM BY RICHARD HEATHEN AND LIBERTY MACHINE NEWS
IF YOU ENJOY OUR CONTENT AND WOULD LIKE TO CONTRIBUTE. SIMPLY DONATE THE PRICE OF A PINT, CHEERS.