Postflavians' Guide to Why Fascism is a Really Bad Idea

Richard Stanley

Administrator
I have to say that I do not like this name of Hierarchicalism, especially because it does not start with a 'K'. How about Kaste 2.0?

In any case, does one have to prequalify to enter the combat succession for Global Dicktator, like take some IQ test, rigged to exclude 'certain' peoples? Or can we just stick with the red-headed, green eyed volk? To honor Claude's almost hero, we could get candidates from 'kaste-ing central'.
 
I noticed belatedly that a reply I had made was deleted as offensive in its humor - which is your right since it concerned American political groupings.

However, the definition of Fascism is the underlying question since it can be easily called a "really bad idea" in some of its manifestations. However, in its underlying philosophy - which could only be established in retrospect, rather than believing the idiotic and contradictory pronouncements of Mussolini, Rosenberg, Hitler, Franco etc. given in various contexts - Fascism reveals an underlying core of a vital understanding of human nature and of the universe which is entirely lacking in modern Western thought and in the general run of Marxist thought, including Leftist politics generally. (This is why Fascism, philosophically, has a genuine and vibrant future in combatting the rampant arrogance of Judaeo-Christianity of our day - simply because the Left has failed to grasp who the true enemy is.)

This is the fact that the universe is fundamentally disordered. There is causality, but summing up all causality does not mean an ordered universe where, once the revolution is established or "democracy is working properly", billions of humans can "govern themselves" without hierarchy or formal government. Western philosophy believes in a hidden order (either divine as with Christianity or deterministically atheistic as with Steven Pinker, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris) that will supposedly guarantee success even under our usurious system. It is here that the West - and modern Marxism - has failed completely and utterly.

IOW the ultimate goal of Leninism and Anarchism is to abolish any government and thus any human authority whatsoever. Rejecting the Leninist & Anarchist options of course, the remaining Muddled Left of today (e.g. the Australian Labor Party and the US Democrats) are thus caught between the Leftist idea of egalitarian democracy (reducing all to local government if any) and being caught up in the finance capitalist system of Judaeo-Christianity as mere tools and functionaries if not willing participants.

Oswald Mosley, founder of British Fascism, could at least see through the Left's confusion - and should be given credit for that, for coming to understand the utter hopelessness of the Leftist options - though his insights were proven only with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991!

So while the manifestations of Fascism can certainly be really bad, the underlying philosophy of Fascism is the only correct one - when compared with the Western and Leftist philosophical agenda - which is why the Cultural Marxists (= Frankfurt School) mortally feared it, and why Fascism in its inner core is unreasonably insulted as it is today. To see this, you only have to read Lenin's The State and Revolution to see his naïve reductionist arrogance emerge where he claims that once democracy is established, all government - and democracy itself - will wither away because everyone will think alike and interact benignly and automatically. This did not happen, since Russia fell into civil war, while the Leninist agenda so frightened war-torn Europe that Fascism arose simply because of the Leninist doctrine and the palpable threat to authority it caused - not mere traditional authority, but to governance of any sort, including socialism.
Lenin said:
...fully consistent democracy is impossible under capitalism and under Socialism all democracy withers away. (S&R IV:5)
These words manifest Lenin's "Vanguard doctrine" where government is to be maintained on a temporary basis to set up Socialism - unlike Anarchism where government is to abolished immediately.

Reformist Leftism disagrees with Leninism & Anarchism only in that it believes it can control and reform existing government, its failure in philosophy and understanding clear from such "Leftist" parties today, which e.g. in Australia, are involved in privatization of public utilities, increasing the power of the rich over their now impoverished voters.

So I do not imagine that this posting will be deleted - but, this being the case, I also wonder whether the underlying issue of the disorder in nature itself can be dealt with honestly by most people who have grown up under Western ideas and values, where there is an unreasoning belief in an inner unity (and an irrational hatred of anything labelled 'Fascist') - the inner unity either guaranteed by God or some abstract atheist notion like pantheism (closet determinism) or the Big Bang - such inner unity being manifested by a "sentiment towards democracy (or egalitarianism) for all".

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Administrator
You are engaging in binary thinking again. Lenin has no application to what I think.

What amazes me it that we have seen glimpses of what can work, as we saw with the successes of Embedded Liberalism, only to have it swept away by the Neoliberals and Neoconsrvatives. Instead of returning to that and building upon it, you'd rather go down a path which has no record of success, and have no proposed how its leadership can be determined and sustained short of bloodshed. I guess that latter being a return to Scythian virtue?
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
I noticed belatedly that a reply I had made was deleted as offensive in its humor - which is your right since it concerned American political groupings.
Welcome back, Claude! I was worried perhaps that I had offended you, especially since I believe what you posted was intended as a humorous riposte to Richard's shameless baiting. Thanks for your understanding that I decided it had to go.

However, the definition of Fascism is the underlying question since it can be easily called a "really bad idea" in some of its manifestations. However, in its underlying philosophy - which could only be established in retrospect, rather than believing the idiotic and contradictory pronouncements of Mussolini, Rosenberg, Hitler given in various contexts
Agreed that this is a disconnect in our discussion. By "Fascism", I mean the various pronouncements of the Fascist dictators on your list, along with their actions.

There is causality, but summing up all causality does not mean an ordered universe where, once the revolution is established or "democracy is working properly", billions of humans can "govern themselves" without hierarchy or formal government.
Is this really a description of "Western ideals and values" in general? Or is this just the anarchist fringe that thinks this way?
 
You will appreciate, Richard, that I have to engage in binary thinking in order to bring out oppositions-in-nature - but such a procedure can of course be subject to terrible abuse!
You are engaging in binary thinking again. Lenin has no application to what I think.
So happy to hear it!:) But I have to quote Lenin here in order to demonstrate that the popular notion of Soviet Communism is that it WANTED to set up a bureaucratic regime as its primary aim. Yet even Stalin admitted that his "socialism in one country" was meant to be a temporary situation. (For the most modern Soviet era views on philosophy I work from Viktor G. Afanasyev, who was editor of Pravda and member of the Central Committee in Gorbachev's era - surely adequate credentials for someone to indicate upon what philosophical basis his own political leaders were thinking)

What amazes me it that we have seen glimpses of what can work, as we saw with the successes of Embedded Liberalism, only to have it swept away by the Neoliberals and Neoconservatives. Instead of returning to that and building upon it, you'd rather go down a path which has no record of success, and have no proposed how its leadership can be determined and sustained short of bloodshed. I guess that latter being a return to Scythian virtue?
I take Embedded Liberalism to be essentially the same as Keynes' Deficit Spending model which produced the spectacular 30 years of economic growth from 1948-1978; this does not impress me one iota, and not merely because I joined the workforce in 1979, having just graduated as a medical doctor - only to see medical spending sharply curtailed in the decades since.

I can only see Embedded Liberalism as an aspirational fantasy preached by a naïve middle class, whereas those in the know became Neoliberals and Neocons because they understood how the economy really worked, rather than indulging in the egalitarian fantasies entertained by Embedded Liberalism (EL) - though you may correct me and direct me to works stating quite otherwise re EL on Earth.:cool:

Wikipedia-on-EL said:
Embedded liberalism is a term for the global economic system and the associated international political orientation as they existed from the end of World War 2 to the 1970s. The system was set up to support a combination of free trade with the freedom for states to enhance their provision of welfare and to regulate their economies to reduce unemployment.
I looked up Junkipedia in retrospect: EL is a good-time girl, not someone you can rely on long-term, even though she may have seemed so in 1948, since capitalism is not a stable but an evolving one-way system.

"A path with no record of success?"

Hierarchicalism, pioneered by Fascism (which arose only with Mussolini in 1919 so only a century old at the time of writing), is a very new system. What has not been seen is that the Falangists of Spain, later suppressed by Franco when he dismissed Manuel Hedilla, and when he adopted Western capitalism belatedly, later spread to Lebanon, spreading widely into the Christian community there especially when Israel blamed the Falangist militia for slaughtering the Palestinian women and children in Sabra and Chatila.* And the fight in the Middle East continues - especially when Putin came in to support Assad against the Western-&-Israel-backed ISIS.

Yours faithfully
Claude

*See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ang_Swee_Chai for what really happened. She is a retired orthopaedic surgeon who happened to be in Lebanon at the time, her East Asian background protecting her from suspicion.
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Administrator
I take Embedded Liberalism to be essentially the same as Keynes' Deficit Spending model which produced the spectacular 30 years of economic growth from 1948-1978; this does not impress me one iota, and not merely because I joined the workforce in 1979, having just graduated as a medical doctor - only to see medical spending sharply curtailed in the decades since.

I can only see Embedded Liberalism as an aspirational fantasy preached by a naïve middle class, whereas those in the know became Neoliberals and Neocons because they understood how the economy really worked, rather than indulging in the egalitarian fantasies entertained by Embedded Liberalism (EL) - though you may correct me and direct me to works stating quite otherwise re EL on Earth.
So, what you are saying is that you are not only a binary thinker, but one who engages in reverso logic?

You also engage in a straw man argument, which I already exposed here, in your superficial take on egalitarianism and how it is applied. Apparently, it doesn't work that way in Australia, but in American it means (or was supposed to mean) "equal under the law" and therefore one is free to play ping-pong for a living and/or become a businessman. Or be a wage earner or a wage slave.

Instead, because you, like a Randian libertarian, can't imagine a means to regulate business and usury, must return humanity to a state of Feudalism or neo-Feudalism. And here you are apparently going to fill the ranks of your pyramidal hierarchies with .... what? And how?

And how are you going to prevent liebensraum wars for resources amongst the various nations? Or ... is that a Good Thing in your NeoScythia?
 
It was intended as a humorous riposte....
Welcome back, Claude! I was worried perhaps that I had offended you, especially since I believe what you posted was intended as a humorous riposte to Richard's shameless baiting. Thanks for your understanding that I decided it had to go.
...so had no primary informative content. Hence all AOK.

Fascism in action, apart from the philosophy, has overall certainly been a disaster...
Agreed that this is a disconnect in our discussion. By "Fascism", I mean the various pronouncements of the Fascist dictators on your list, along with their actions.
… so I had to look further back at the underlying philosophy, which cannot be ascertained clearly and directly from the dictators' works.

I had written that "There is causality, but summing up all causality does not mean an ordered universe where, once the revolution is established or "democracy is working properly", billions of humans can "govern themselves" without hierarchy or formal government."
Is this really a description of "Western ideals and values" in general? Or is this just the anarchist fringe that thinks this way?
Now that's the trillion dollar question!:D

The anarchist fringe certainly thinks that way, even if they don't admit it clearly. What they are actually doing is drawing the logical conclusion from popular Western beliefs and prejudices, though from a relatively atheistic perspective.

But the Western world does NOT admit its philosophy clearly, degenerating into agnostic-scepticism in the manner of David Hume, or frank idealism (Berkeley) or a sheer deceitful muddle, notably the "phenomenology" philosophy of Edmund Husserl whom the great Franfurtschuler (= Cultural Marxist) Herbert Marcuse quotes from liberally in his One-Dimensional Man - as is to be expected from one who espouses sexual degradation as the Way, the Truth and the Life for those disillusioned by the cheap tricks and empty posturing of Christianity!

Yours faithfully
Claude

PS: I would have replied back last week except that I was in Melbourne for a Georgist meeting, having now been chosen as one of the new trustees for a Georgist organization there.
 
Last edited:
Tempting isn't it always to badger Badley!....
So, what you are saying is that you are not only a binary thinker, but one who engages in reverso logic?
By which I presume you mean Hegel's "negation of negation"?
You also engage in a straw man argument, which I already exposed here, in your superficial take on egalitarianism and how it is applied. Apparently, it doesn't work that way in Australia, but in American it means (or was supposed to mean) "equal under the law" and therefore one is free to play ping-pong for a living and/or become a businessman. Or be a wage earner or a wage slave.
Indeed, egalitarianism is the superficial presumption of modernity and the masses today. Free to sleep under a bridge in a blizzard!
Instead, because you, like a Randian libertarian, can't imagine a means to regulate business and usury, must return humanity to a state of Feudalism or neo-Feudalism. And here you are apparently going to fill the ranks of your pyramidal hierarchies with .... what? And how?
Not with either Ayn Rand or Randy Andy Windsor! The usurers will always rise to the top as I explained in #57 in "Fixing Democracy". A "means to regulate" and an "Embedded" situation over Liberalism have to be spelled out, especially when modern philosophy DENIES an external context, denies any embedding or necessary regulation! Controlling the liberally inclined people is necessary, lest they take over everything - e.g. by buying votes!
And how are you going to prevent liebensraum wars for resources amongst the various nations? Or ... is that a Good Thing in your NeoScythia?
We get into outer space rather than fighting each other on Earth. ....Oh, but I forgot, Big Al Einstein tells us nothing can travel faster than light, rendering space travel over lightyears impossible. But then again, if you're dumb enough to believe Einstein, I think someone you know has a big bridge to sell you...?

Yours faithfully
Claude
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
I had to look further back at the underlying philosophy, which cannot be ascertained clearly and directly from the dictators' works.
What are these works of underlying Fascist philosophy, and who are their authors?

PS: I would have replied back last week except that I was in Melbourne for a Georgist meeting, having now been chosen as one of the new trustees for a Georgist organization there.
Congratulations, and good work!! Next you'll be telling us that Henry George was a Fascist.

We get into outer space rather than fighting each other on Earth. ....
Any followup to this comment, belongs in this thread:

https://postflaviana.org/community/index.php?threads/elon-musk-space-fraud.2490/

I had been meaning to add some remarks there about Dyson spheres, and O'Neill cylinders, and Marshall Savage and his book "How to Colonize the Galaxy in Eight Easy Steps." (Or something like that.) But really none of it seems very practical in the near term. And so I got sidetracked, and my thread went moribund...
 
Aah! Some meaty relevant questions.
What are these works of underlying Fascist philosophy, and who are their authors?
Basically the works of Friedrich Nietzsche and Georges Sorel, to give the best two examples. One German, one French, Sorel started work in the early 1890s at the time Nietzsche had already gone insane from syphilis, Sorel being 3 years younger than Nietzsche however. Sorel's work on the "Process Socrate", written before he knew Nietzsche's works as they were gradually translated into French, has the same fundamental philosophical perspective as Nietzsche's "Birth of Tragedy". Sorel went on to improve Nietzsche's insights in many areas.

Nietzsche knew philosophy but not much science, Sorel knew less philosophy but much science, hence the two authors strengthen one another's positions. Sartre called Sorel a "Fascist" - so note Sartre's positive mention in the last chapter of The Authoritarian Personality, that premier Frankfurt School text funded by the American Jewish Committee.
Congratulations, and good work!! Next you'll be telling us that Henry George was a Fascist.
George was a Christian; that is why his "Progress and Poverty" has been rewritten by the Schalkenbach Foundation. Note the German name!

When I wrote of space travel...
Any followup to this comment, belongs in this thread:

https://postflaviana.org/community/index.php?threads/elon-musk-space-fraud.2490/

I had been meaning to add some remarks there about Dyson spheres, and O'Neill cylinders, and Marshall Savage and his book "How to Colonize the Galaxy in Eight Easy Steps." (Or something like that.) But really none of it seems very practical in the near term. And so I got sidetracked, and my thread went moribund...
… I am now referred to Elon Musk "space fraud". Interesting - since economic growth depends on an ever increasing substrate!;)

Yours faithfully
Claude
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
I am now referred to Elon Musk "space fraud".
There was a lot of topic drift in that thread, perhaps it needs a new title. Although ultimately I don't feel I can endorse Musk's space projects, I don't see much reason to question his sincerity. And that's whether or not the pics of the Roadster and Starman were fakes.
 
I should have mentioned above (in post #110) that Nietzsche can be difficult to understand. Compare the differences between Martin Heidegger, Reg Hollingdale and Walter Kaufmann* on the interpretations.

However I find the best author, still young, on correctly expounding Nietzsche to be one Hugo Drochon as expressed in his Nietzsche's Great Politics, a must for all investigators as he avoids the problems and misinterpretations of the aforementioned authors. Nor does he 'crib' by inserting Sorel to bias the interpretation. Nevertheless, the anti-Einsteinian implications of Nietzsche follow logically from Drochon's position, these magnified by Sorel with his scientific background in engineering.

So get this book you intrepid proto-Georgists!

Yours faithfully
Claude

PS: So am I to expect a reply like "Who iss ziss man, Klink?" in reference to Drochon?:D

*Not to be confused with the 19th century physicist of the same name, who did the electron-discovery experiment before J. J. Thompson, and more accurately, but shied away from making the mathematics-based deductions required to uncover the electron-particle. I do not know whether the two are actually related.
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
"Who iss ziss man, Klink?"
Author: "Nietzche's Great Politics".

From the publisher's blurb:

Hugo Drochon argues that Nietzsche’s political ideas must first be understood in light of Bismarck’s policies, in particular his “Great Politics,” which transformed the international politics of the late nineteenth century.
Nietzsche’s Great Politics shows how Nietzsche made Bismarck’s notion his own, enabling him to offer a vision of a unified European political order that was to serve as a counterbalance to both Britain and Russia. This order was to be led by a “good European” cultural elite whose goal would be to encourage the rebirth of Greek high culture.
A reader's comment at Amazon indicates that according to Drochon, "Nietzsche's main inspiration is in fact Plato's Republic." Which leads me to ask, was Plato a Fascist? I suspect Richard would say so.
 
The publisher's blurb underplays what Drochon says, and misrepresents Nietzsche as he did NOT like the Reichdeutsch attitude of Wagner or Bismarck...
Author: "Nietzche's Great Politics".

A reader's comment at Amazon indicates that according to Drochon, "Nietzsche's main inspiration is in fact Plato's Republic." Which leads me to ask, was Plato a Fascist? I suspect Richard would say so.
… so could not be called a German nationalist by any criterion. This is why in Crane Brinton's work on Nietzsche he publishes the photo of Hitler's visit to the Nietzsche museum. Nietzsche's bust faces us while we see Hitler's right profile as he stares across a clear window at Nietzsche's right profile. I.e. Hitler only liked some of what Nietzsche said, as he is telling us in this obviously studio-lighted photograph.

Many authors label Plato a fascist - but he can only be a clumsy or crude one given his idealism that invoked entities being "thoughts in the mind of God" - and so I think Richard would agree with the latter too, unless he has a long snorkel and has gone off in search of Atlantis, somewhere between Bermuda and Yonaiguni (sic).

Yours faithfully
Claude
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
The pre-Grimes me might have called Plato a fascist, but the post-Grimes me not so much. He had to speak cryptically ... if for nothing else, to avoid Socrate's hemlock fate.

If Plato was, then he believed that all ones must indeed "gnow their selves", and what that implies in reapproaching The One.

I just watched a recent interesting show on Remote Viewing, and it would appear that this CIA program may backfire just like LSD. As such, Claude can go find Atlantis from his couch for us. Yes, it's between Bermuda and Yonaiguni, ... one way, the other way[sic].

What "studio-lighted photograph"?
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
In any case, does one have to prequalify to enter the combat succession for Global Dicktator, like take some IQ test, rigged to exclude 'certain' peoples? Or can we just stick with the red-headed, green eyed volk? To honor Claude's almost hero, we could get candidates from 'kaste-ing central'.
Here we are, another 15 bantering posts down the road, with still no clue from Badley as to how his proposed system is going to work. How are we going to recruit a national or world dictator without having that person fall into the vortex of evil occupied by Hitler, Mussolini, Franco & etc?

I have the sense that Claude is a sincere thinker, looking for a solution to the problems of our time. His posts are too novel, creative & unique to be the production of some propaganda sweatshop operated by some would-be fascist dictator.

But still, I have to ask: WTF??? Fascism? Seriously???
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
It's interesting that according Badleyian Logic that the roots of Fascist Hierarchicalism start with Plato and the Church, yet flowed (detoured? :rolleyes:) through Fiume:


Of course, such debauchery is consistent with Trump et al..
 
I think you already realize, Richard...
It's interesting that according Badleyian Logic that the roots of Fascist Hierarchicalism start with Plato and the Church, yet flowed (detoured? :rolleyes:) through Fiume:

Of course, such debauchery is consistent with Trump et al..
...that the continuation of the present global situation will lead to the utter breakdown of liberal (libertarian and New Deal) politics in the wake of WW3. Just as Fiume was recognized by extreme groups, so will the new Hierarchical regime, simply because people will have had enough of Judaeo-Christianity and its implications.

Furthermore, other countries have already been through this mess, notably Russia, as shown by Yuri Slezkine's book, reference to which I seem to remember I found here! Slezkine shows how Russians and Jews thought alike in 1900, their complete falling out by the time of the Yeltsin regime leading to Putin and the latter's varied attempts to maintain his nation's freedom from the Judaeo-Christian snares. Of course, Russia too will collapse with WW3 but the survivors will already have Putin's reputation and forms of government as models for their own future.

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Putin and the latter's varied attempts to maintain his nation's freedom from the Judaeo-Christian snares.
Putin's era is characterized by a resurgence of Russian Orthodoxy. See, for example, this article:

https://thebulletin.org/2019/06/blessing-the-holy-icbms-the-russian-orthodox-church-and-putin/

Russian Nuclear Orthodoxy: Religion, Politics, and Strategy (Stanford University Press, 2019) by Dmitry Adamsky, a professor at the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya university in Israel, is a penetrating analysis of the growing influence of the Russian Orthodox Church in Russia’s nuclear world—both in the military and the scientific communities. This excellent scholarly work is well-researched and extensively documented. It shows how the Russian Orthodox Church has penetrated and integrated itself into the Russian Armed Forces and even some of the closed nuclear cities—to the point where priests bless new nuclear missiles. Indeed, to some extent, Russian Orthodox priests have taken over the role formerly held by political officers during the Communist period: They keep an eye on the spiritual purity of the troops, glorify the military, and ensure the reliability of the soldiers during combat. ....
The state under Vladimir Putin has encouraged the rise of the Russian Orthodox Church but has drawn clear lines of authority to ensure that the church’s position in society does not exceed what is useful to the Kremlin and does not challenge state policies. Vladimir Putin has demonstrably identified his regime with the Russian Orthodox Church to such an extent that his policies appear to share certain features with Nicholas I’s doctrine of “Orthodoxy, Autocracy, and Nationality.” It would have been helpful if Adamsky had provided background to the important historical relationship between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian state so that the reader could better understand the context of Adamsky’s superb analysis and his extensive narrative of how “… a formerly outcast religion became supported by the state and wormed its way into the most significant wing of one of the most powerful military organizations in the world… within a very short span of time.”
Which begs the question, whether Russian Orthodoxy can be seen as somehow distinct or preferable to "Judaeo Christianity". It seems to me that at a philosophical and theological level, the similarities are much more important than any differences. They claim to worship the same deities. And without looking deeply into the matter, how can we be sure whether or not the Russian Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches are linked by conspiratorial relationships at the top of their respective hierarchies?
 

Seeker

Active Member
And without looking deeply into the matter, how can we be sure whether or not the Russian Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches are linked by conspiratorial relationships at the top of their respective hierarchies?
Controlled opposition? First the Western and Eastern Roman Empires split up, then the Western and Eastern Roman Churches, but in the beginning they were all controlled by Rome, and this political/religious West/East "schism", in a much broader sense, has continued to this very day.
 
Top