search
top

Labor Day Reading

I hope you find these as interesting as I did:

Fascism and the Future, Part One: Up From Newspeak

Fascism and the Future, Part Two: The Totalitarian Center

Fascism and the Future, Part Three: Weimar America

Also from the same author:

The Kek Wars, Part One: Aristocracy and its Discontents

The Kek Wars, Part Two: In the Shadow of the Cathedral

The Kek Wars, Part Three: Triumph of the Frog God

The Kek Wars, Part Four: What Moves In The Darkness

I’ve never hung out on the “chans,” so I can’t speak for how true this is, but it’s an interesting analysis. I’m not sure what I think about it yet, but it’s a damned interesting take.

One reason I haven’t been blogging as much is because everything is up in the air right now. The old order is being smashed before our eyes, and I have no idea what the new order will look like.

21 Responses to “Labor Day Reading”

  1. Roger says:

    There is an old Chinese curse,”May you live in interesting times.”

    I think we are there.

  2. Richard says:

    The problem here is that people keep trying to make America one country again. It isn’t even close to that and won’t be again. The attempt to unify will end in civil war.

    • Patrick Henry, the 2nd says:

      Exactly this. We are too far apart, and the norms that keep the two sides together have slowly been eroding.

  3. National Observer says:

    “It isn’t even close to that and won’t be again. The attempt to unify will end in civil war.”

    Spoken like a true secessionist. And civil war? Gosh, wonder who would like to see that?

    But just thinkin’: What “culturally” made the U.S. less unified than it was, say, 50 or 100 years ago? Other than certain factions telling us it was so?

    The Culture Wars are something we were talked into.

    • Richard says:

      I certainly don’t want civil war. There is a difference between advocacy and prediction. The prediction is based on my perception that the left won’t stop. They certainly haven’t stopped for 50 years now.

      • National Observer says:

        “There is a difference between advocacy and prediction.”

        Indeed there is. But the “prediction” of civil war grows from seeds I’ve watched being planted for many years now – always by people who were just “predicting”, never “advocating.” Sort of like planting a tiny acorn and “predicting” a mighty oak tree may grow there.

        There even was a time I’m told when “advocacy” would have been illegal, when it would have been referred to as “advocating the violent overthrow of the United States.” In those days I think only Dirty Commies entertained the idea.

        • Richard says:

          So are you advocating surrender?

          • National Observer says:

            I have to apologize, because now you’ve lost me. First you were saying you weren’t advocating civil war, but now you are talking about “surrender” as if civil war is the only alternative to – what exactly?

            I don’t intend to put words in your mouth (or keyboard) but if I were a defendant and I said that I “predicted” something bad would happen to the jury’s families if I was convicted, it would be construed that I was threatening the jury. In the same sense, predicting civil war if things don’t go the way you (maybe we) want them to, could be construed as advocating violence (civil war) as a means to get your way. That sense would seem to be reinforced by your suggestion that “surrender” is the alternative to something you don’t make exactly clear. But once again I confess to being confused.

            I just need to observe that at least one second-string nation that has been fucking with our system would have a lot of status to gain on the world stage if the U.S. descended into civil war, or even into relatively peaceful dissolution, so I’m as sensitive to where those kinds of ideas come from on the right, as Cold War era folks were back when Bolshevik inspired leftists advocated for the “violent overthrow.”

            • Richard says:

              I am in favor of partition as the alternative to civil war or partition. The constitutional republic can’t be preserved with half the country trying to destroy it.

              The Left overreached in 1968 and got their head handed to them. They regrouped and started their “Long March through the Institutions”. This has been wildly successful and is continuing. The Right on the other hand went back to sleep. Some of them still are.

              You reveal much in your Russia comment. Unless you mean Germany or the UK.

              • National Observer says:

                “You reveal much in your Russia comment.”

                Expand on that. Maybe I’ll learn something about myself, or you’ll expose it for all the other readers.

                • Richard says:

                  Not really my job to enlighten you but the exchange has enlightened me. I consider that a win.

                  • National Observer says:

                    “Not really my job to enlighten you but the exchange has enlightened me.”

                    I guess delusion can be a blessing, as long as you think you’re a winner. ;-)

    • Ian Argent says:

      The Great Sort is causing people to cluster based on their shared politico-social beliefs.

      But the real answer is that as more and more things get federalized, the existing steady-state level of division between Americans becomes more obvious as we get Yet Another Single Nationwide Rule for “whatever.”

      Whether it’s minimum wage or CAFE regs, or whatever.

    • Patrick Henry, the 2nd says:

      Nothing wrong with seceding. Worked fine in 1776. Doesn’t mean it has to be a civil war either. Different groups of people should be able to go their own way, without being ruled by people they don’t like or agree with. And of course, nobody wants a civil war, or to fight a war defending their liberties, but sometimes you have no choice.

      There is a lot wrong with trying to keep a massive country together with plenty of different cultures.

      What culturally made us less unified? The fact that both sides are polarized and no longer want to compromise.

      • Sebastian says:

        It’s all much harder business than people think. I think most people here would be happy to see California leave. But what about the naval bases and ports? We need those.

        That’s not even considering who gets the nuclear weapons.

  4. Sigivald says:

    I read the first three, and they check out with my serious study of the early days of Naziism and Fascism, and the period in general.

    (The author is an interesting mix, looking at his actual site, of deep, serious insight into thought and philosophy, and barking mad occultism, which is at least interesting.

    Like R.A. Wilson, if Wilson was serious.)

    • Sebastian says:

      The author is an interesting mix, looking at his actual site, of deep, serious insight into thought and philosophy, and barking mad occultism, which is at least interesting.

      I noticed that too.

  5. National Observer says:

    “The author is an interesting mix, looking at his actual site, of deep, serious insight into thought and philosophy, and barking mad occultism.”

    Contrary to the sentiment, which so far appears to be the consensus here, I found I had difficulty getting through the “Fascism and the Future” essays because I was encountering undercurrents I have seen all too frequently in the past couple years, so overall I thought I was seeing not much really new, except the “barking mad occultism” which reminded me of way the German Nazis attempted to turn their movement into something “mystical” but with only limited success; and no success at all with the general population of Germany.

    The main undercurrent I’m alluding to is, someone addressing current attempts to address contemporary parallels to historical “fascism”, and, going into great historical detail, finding some nuances that don’t align exactly between a current scenario and a historical example, then proclaiming “Aha! Everyone crying “fascism” is nothing by a hystericist!” I give Archdruid credit only for being more subtle than most.

    Part of my problem just now is that Archdruid seems to be making some talking-points that are now well-worn, while using too many words to make them. The feeling everything was headed somewhere I’d been taken too many times before made the reading less than riveting, despite the extensive historical details.

    One of those points appears to be, that because no one has ever come up with a universally accepted definition of fascism, that can be reduced to a handful of bullet-pointed characteristics, using the word as a noun or adjective is more often than not in error, a misusage, and an abuse of language; i.e., imprecision of meaning or lack of agreement on meaning is equivalent to there being no meaning. I observe that could apply to “ideologies” in general; and yet we all think we know what our ideologies are all about.

    I have seen that argued many times, and I don’t accept it. It almost always comes across as discomfort that current usages of the word “fascism” are coming too close to the mark and needs to be discredited.

    Another of Archdruid’s apparent points is, that because authoritarian collectivists have often shared many of the same tactics and practices of those who have fairly been called fascists, that somehow muddies the waters regarding who-is-what. In my opinion it only muddies the waters of whether it’s important what the authoritarians are called. But in that vein, Archdruid appears to demonstrate more awareness of nuances between different practitioners of fascism, than he does of the spectrum of ideologies that exists among collectivists.

    There is a definite economic component to fascism that makes it distinct from authoritarian collectivism. That is, the idealization of private property as an ideal, though not necessarily as an actuality. By that I mean, the inviolability of private property under fascism is usually proportional to the wealth of the owner, and being a “real” (i.e., “patriotic”, etc.) citizen is usually a de facto requirement for access to property rights. For example, the early Nazis paid great lip-service to private property, to such an extent that many non-authoritarians who regarded “private property” more as a religious totem than as a mere ideal, supported anything else the Nazis might do as long as they said they would defend private property. But meanwhile, confiscation of Jewish property and wealth became an everyday reality. They weren’t real Germans. (I am tempted to make the analogy to “freedom loving” gun owners embracing an administration that is at the very least “autocratic”, if definitionism requires me to avoid use of the word “fascistic.”)

    I’d suggest that if no hard definition of fascism exists, we can establish a sort of consensus for self-definition, in the sense of people who choose to visibly align themselves with others who are historically accepted to have been fascists, or called themselves fascists, or who were regarded in their time as fascists, according to the then-current definitions.

    Archdruid seems to suggest that despite having been the virtual authors of the word, Italian fascists may not have quite qualified, based on a claimed relatively low number of political murders they committed. (Which, by-the-way, I find a suspicious claim I’ll have to check into.) And indeed, if you check out photos of the “Unite the Right” demonstrators in Charlotteville last summer, I doubt you’ll find many or any symbols of Italian Fascism, or Franco’s Spanish Fascists, though you will find plenty of symbols and emulation of the German Nazis. (Except there may have been some graphic renderings of “fascia” that I have failed to notice.) The Italians and Spaniards, rightly or wrongly, just do not have a historical reputation for being deadly enough (though they both were plenty deadly.) But, you will find references to Pinochet’s Chile, including T-shirts saying “Pinochet did nothing wrong” and portrayals of bound prisoners being thrown from helicopters. So among people who would be fascists, and don’t seem to really mind giving cause for being called fascist, there appears to be a naturally evolved consensus regarding an important requirement for being a real fascist.

    In summary, it would seem the requirement for being called “fascist” is, aligning oneself with the those who have best formed a consensus that it’s something they want to be, and thus indirectly aligning oneself with the people they choose to emulate or honor symbolically – e.g., the swastika or Pinochet’s helicopters. As I mentioned above, that could apply to all ideologies. A “real conservative” (or “libertarian” or whatever) is not the same thing thing meant only a couple decades ago, and we all are familiar with “RINOs.”

  6. Steve says:

    Good stuff, long reading – I had to avoid a lot of work to get through all that. :D
    Interesting perspective on the matter that I’m now the better for having read. I appreciated that someone who I presume was no lover of Trump could appreciate both what a dumpster fire Hillary’s campaign was and the rational critique of that trifecta of ills for the working man: over-regulation, free trade, and tacit approval of an open border. In other words, there was/is more to Trump’s stump than Russian manipulation of the American populace. But I enjoyed reading about the mythological and Jungian context to all of this, as well as the chaos magic.

  7. Ian Argent says:

    I don’t want to see separation of the nation. I’d like to see some devolution of power back to the states and localities.

top