Fascism

No user. Never let them tell you that. You have eyes and an aesthetic sense, so you're every bit as qualified to judge a painting as anyone who has ever lived. Deferring to self-proclaimed experts on art is what let them turn art into garbage.

Don't worry, that was my false modesty talking. In real life I am a megalomaniac, convinced that I know everything about everything. I only pretend to be humble on the Internet.

Mongrel dogs of the Empire need to get out before I get them out.

That's the spirit!

Are the megalomaniac guys always dickhead? I haven't meet a megalomaniac guy yet.

That's… diabolical.

Basically, megalomania is an archaic term. 21st century shrinks don't use it any more.

The nature of the modern world is that impersonal authorities (such as money, police, addiction to consumer goods) tend to undermine genuine social relationships.

Therefore, almost *everyone* in the modern world is narcissistic, because we don't develop healthy human relationships to teach us love, empathy, peer cooperation, etc.

Narcissism has various forms. Some narcissists are NOT dickheads, but most human beings are dickheads some of the time.

Unfortunately, narcissism can get out of control. It can lead to unethical, degenerate, and dishonorable behavior. Just being a dickhead is not necessarily evil, but narcissism can definitely lead you to evil behavior.

Thank you for that very flattering comment.

Note that I disagree with modern shrinks re the cause of compensatory narcissism.

The shrinks say:

Insecurities and feelings of inferiority may be personal pathologies. But the alienation of modern culture also produces a very rational sense of insecurity. The police can dehumanize you, hurt you, or kill you, and they will get away with it. If that doesn't make you feel insecure, you're not evaluating the risks rationally.

Because most people in modern society are in a very real situation of insecurity, most people exhibit the symptoms and signs of compensatory narcissism.

This does not mean the shrinks are right and it's all the fault of mommies and daddies who don't raise their children according to the dictates of shrinks.

This means that the current ruling elite encourages dehumanization and social disconnection because they don't want loyal families who might resist centralized government power.

The alienated masses distract themselves by believing their petty needs and whims to be very important. That is compensatory narcissism. It is not a personal problem. It is a social problem.

Very good points, saved.

I wholeheartedly concur. What do you think of Reich?

I admit something also. Despite being racially aware, I find Latina chics very sexually desirable. I'm even into the whole Latin musical scape, Reggaeton, Cumbia etc.

Here for example Colombia's Systema Solar with "El Majagual".

I think Eco was going for political punch over any kind of intellectual honesty or curiosity.
Who starts out saying, and I presume he wrote this after realising how little sense his piece made, that he's created a bunch of contradictory positions and called them fascism but that's ok because it only takes one of them to be true for a movement to be fascist.
I'm not sure how much of that sophistry can be explained by tunnel vision.

Fascism is, in the first place, a call to action - a call for rejuvenation, for the eternal spring and flowering of race and nation.

I like your posts, megalomaniac guy.

How does the narcissistic guys discipline themselves so they don't lose the control and go crazy?

And to the masculine, heroic principle.

Of course he was. All 'analysis' of Fascism thusfar has just been gommies going "Hurr! Your stooopid! hurr! hurr!' None of these points are ever actually given any rational criticism.

MAKE RESDAYN GREAT AGAIN

What about Julius Evola in Notes on the Third Reich and Fascism viewed from the Right?

I've never read anything by Evola. I guess I should've made explicit 'mainstream' analysis. Which most thereof is either "its mean ;(" or "hurr fascism is just capitalism in decline i'm smart".

Well, the demotism/plebejanism as well as materialism of historical NS are obviously out of the question for someone lig Big E.

It's usually mongrels, or people with a weak racial will who are interested in tradition.

Traditions means falling back on older religious or cultural elements, because you no longer carry them inside of you.

Evola's ideology is more cosmopolitan and less racial, so it makes more sense that he offers criticism from the left.

Less racial? How so?

The basis of Evola's ideology, is that there is an elite of people that exists outside of race.

Only a person belonging to the mongrel worls that stretches from Spain to Cambodia would belief that.

Eco is another one who made a fortune in a communist/left leaning Italy after the war, with many other, while right leaning or even fascists were completely ignored.
If it wasn't for the party's guide lines he would have been another good author but nothing more. There is nothing of intellectual when he completely refused to even discuss things with a fascist but went out of his way to say "fascism should be smashed", another great pontiff which found is strength in a world who bowed to his feet and critical theory, while preventing any kind of meaningful counter-argument to rise.

Ur-fascist is the same exact bullshit he accuse us of doing, the newspeak.
There is traditionalism in fascism but it isn't based on it, and Evola( who was completely disregarded in favor of Eco,at least in Italy,wonder why) already explained it.

Yep,that's why the Fascist manifest was signed by most of the greatest writers and philosopher of Italy at that time, starting from Gentile, passing to Marinetti, and then we got someone who,with words, was far better than Eco would ever be, and that's D'Annuzio, who practically reinvented our language.

I wish it was, but Eco, as most of the historians of our time, refused completely to even consider the history of fascism, Italy and WW2 beside the always present "fascist bad, italy bad, etc.". If fascism really considered disagreement as treason, Mussolini would have hanged far many more people, at least we would have had a shot at the war instead of being completely invaded by traitors so much the Americans had to make a point just for them in the peace treaty.

Non-sense, considering what we know, our "fear" is completely justified.I bet he would have called fear even what is happening in France.

Call it bad.With Mussolini your petty social identity based on class was dwarfed by being born in the same Nation.The farmer and the industrial,the North and South, united.With more time we could have achieved complete equality North and South,but that wasn't what our gracious industry's leader wanted.No one wanted a South to be economically competitive with the North, and still now no one wants it.Thanks unification.

Nah, it means the union makes the force.Since we had people like you making fat dinners in Switzerland with the English and the France, deciding where to bomb, how to fuck up the production,etc., i can say we were right again.We had FIAT while Germany had Krupp. That's why we lost the war, not for this.If it's something,we, as Italian, had always a knack for is Foreign politics,the correct evaluation of Foreigner is our strength.

Which is good.See this society without struggle and call it good you fuckwit.

Which is good again.You are weak,yes, but you can and will become better, because in your blood there is the strength of the people before you. We can proudly say to be italians,to belong to a population that made so much for the world after all the shit we got since the fall of Rome.Take your guilt the fuck away,we had to pay much more than the niggers had in their entire life.

And yet women were far more free under fascism than before.Again useless intellectual wanking, Funny even the "phallic exercise", the same stuipd argument liberals play today. What a fucking hivemind.
Beside that came from the Romans, the farmer-soldiers of the Republic you stupid faggot.

Again, if it wasn't for the fact right winger were completely ignored and demonized Eco would have been a good writer but nothing too outstanding.The privilege of saying stupid shit without fear of getting a real answer that counter your arguments.
You can be an antifascist, be my guest, but at least have that modicum of brain that people better than you tried to pass down,to which Croce is probably the best example.At least he understood the disgusting act that went in Italy pre-between- post WW2.

Truly, Holla Forumsacks are the inverse of the average internet user.

And are your views on race purely biological and physical?

No.

Are you retarded? The very title says his critique is coming from the Right, or what he envisaged as "Right".

Bullshit, on the contrary. Falling for modernist bling-bling is the nigger thing to do.

That's a twisted definition. Tradition is precisely the kindling and carrying of that oh so ephemereal flame.

And I already win this discussion.

I see, you don't actually have any arguments WHY I am wrong, you just claim I am retarded and then says Evola speaks from the Right, because he uses the word Right.

In the real world the term modernity means science, Kantian philosophy, evolution, industrialisation etc..

Not something a nigger would be into.

Says the person who twisted the meaning of the word modernity.

He look, a definition, that doesn't actually mean anything.

I wouldn't bother.

Come on.

Not at all. You started by basically calling him leftist.

That is precisely the question now, isn't it? What constitutes the essence of "modernity". While I don't disagree with your rough sketch, it has a feel of Whig history to it.

Of course it does mean something, but only for a Traditionalist.

He, you start insulting, that is a sign you don't actually know any good arguments.

No, that is a lie, I said he is more cosmopolitan and less racial, therefor his ideology is closer to the left.

Give counter-argument.

Well, seeing you give no argument why I should accept your view and not my view, at this moment, my view is the correct one.

I knew it, you refuse to explain what it actually means and claim only a traditionalist will understand what it means.

That is basically admitting defeat.

Your words mean nothing.

With what?

Arguing with him.

Of course, you can't arque with someone, if you don't have any arguments.

(check)

Can't handle the bantz?

Define the term "left" first, to avoid misunderstandings.

Absolutely wrong, this is a grave error of thinking. Only because you don't have an alternative explanation or concept at the moment does not, emphatically not mean that your current standing option somehow automatically turns true.

Not at all - don't be so arrogant. You need to learn intellectual humility. Are you Polish, by the way?

Wrong. You still have to learn that there are truths that can be discovered logically, and truth that can only be discovered analogically, implicitly. Different kinds of concepts.

Real, traditional knowledge is never independent of the person holding it. These are not things youn can necessarily read in some books, although books have been written about it. You yourself mus tbecome a deeper well. Ponder the value of metaphor.

I have a perverse, morbid drive to discussions like this, although in his case I can smell the intellectually immature sophomore from a mile away. But could be that he's Polish, they like to quarrel.

Yeah sure… it's just bantz, totally not trying to hide your lack of ideas…..

Well, it contains cosmopolitanism and anti-racialism, so start there.

Nope, never claimed this, I said that because of the lack of a better definition of the word modernity, mine is presently the correct one.

You will haven't given an other explanation.

I see, it's not you who is arrogant and needs to learn intellectual humilty, it is really me.

I want to point out that as of now, you have barely tried to even debate any positions I hold, only using a few tricks and misdirections.

This has nothing to do with what we where talking about. Clearly you are trying to misdirect this discussion into a completely different direction.

In other words, it's a meaningless philosophical abstraction. (not based in racial consciousness)

To bad I asked YOU to explain it, not to point out any books.

Again, you refuse to actually engage.

He, look a statement that means nothing.

Again, refusing to explain anything and pretending you need some kind of special mindset to understand you.

Who do you think your tricking.

You can fuck them user, just don't make "Jeb's first mistake" as they will call it in the history books.

(check)

Ok, you're Polish. No problem, I just started to notice lately how a certain fondness for quarrel marks your national character.

How long are you going to monitor this thread? Is it worth my while to elaborate a response? I will be awake a few hours longer.

And I win.

Kek

But would giving them babies not mean whitening-up their races?

Dammit, could you stop this petulantism. Just answer the questions. A bit needling is fine, but your elders sometimes crossed the line, which got good Polish people killed when tensions ran high in the Heer.

You are one of the saddest chumps I have met on here in a long while.

You have no argument what so ever, you still haven't given a reason why Evola's cosmopolitan and anti-racial views wouldn't place him more to the left then the right.

Every response by you is either a misdirection, an outright lie or a trick of some sort.

Right now, you think it's clever to pretend I am a polak, or perhaps you really belief your own lies.

My sides have been exterminated.

So some respect. The Poles will save Western Civilization. Polish Pride will be the dominant driving political force in the 21st century.

Evola's views are essentially hierarchically, especially when it comes to race which is widely considered to be the foundation of any real "right" winged or Traditional point of view.

In regards to his cosmopolitanism, he simply embraced many aspects of the European identity. Where exactly would you mark his willingness to indulge in cultures that lean to the left?

Also, what works of Evola have you read, and more importantly, I'm curious as to what exactly you think of Evola. I consider him to be pretty high up there on those worth reading, and as such wouldn't have potentially interested anons lured away due to your misunderstandings.

Yes, but Evola places the spiritual above the biological, I think that is a mistake, I think the spiritual must start with the biological, that soul itself is racial.

The idea that I got from Evola, is that he embraced many religions that I simply do no consider to be Nordic at all, like Islam or Buddhism and that he integrated aspects from those religions into his own worldview.

I haven't read any of his works in about 1.5 year, I read Men Amongst the Ruins, Riding the Tiger and a collections of his essays and a book about Buddhism, not sure the title.

I liked some of what I read, though I am more of a Chamberlain/Rosenberg Nationalsocialist.

Oh, I'm not anti-Polish at all. I actually like the country and people and have been there a few times myself. Krakow for example.

You must not have been here for long :^)

His kind of metaphysical Traditionalism rejects the dichotomy in the first place. But please: define "left" first. We need to get on terms to avoid misunderstanding.

Part of the game.

Your general style as expressed by your writing reminds me of a few Poles I met on the 'net, that is all.

He look, a lie! Never claimed that you are anti-polish!

And a snarky remark!

And instaid of awnsering you misdirect again!

And you admit you are actually a deceiver.

And he continues with his game.

Your hidden!

Good bye!

Come on. We all know you will look anyway.

Look, I can and would like to respond, but I hate drive-by posters. One writes something up, and the other fuck never responds. Don't you agree this is grating?

Evola elaborated his conception of race in The Path of Cinnabar (he also wrote a book on it, but I don't have that at hand), stating that man was racially comprised of three elements, that is: body, character, and spirit.

The main counterpoint to the idea of the spiritual aspect of race having its origin primarily in the physical aspects would be the modern Nordic man. The overwhelming majority of the population has completely degenerated from an interior perspective. These are not the same people as their Solar Viking forebears. The exterior physical aspect remains the same despite lacking the guiding spiritual aspect.

On this point (the racial aspect), I'm not certain we actually disagree, I think it may mostly be dialectical differences.

First, what difference does it make if a religion is not "Nordic"? I have an English translation of the Poetic Edda next to me, and though their are undeniably points of confluence with the Truth, I'm going to argue that they are for the most part quite confused in origin, many elements of broader Tradition being incorrect, such as the demonization of the North as the land of the Etin (If i recall correctly, I'd rather not have to dig for the passage), where in most other Aryan Traditions the North is associated with the original homeland of the Aryan race which was lost.

When you say Nordic, do you mean Solar/ Olympian, or do you actually mean Nordic paganism itself? I'm trying to ask what do you value in Nordic Paganism? If it is the Virile spirit that accompanied it, that can be found in all major Aryan religions to a point. Christianity of course only really receiving it through the assimilation of various "higher" pagan elements. I would argue that those elements best in Nordic paganism can be found in Buddhism or Islam almost verbatim.

Also keep in mind the modern Muslims, that is the Turks are not the same peoples as the original followers of Mohammad. They mixed with various lesser races, including the African and became a mongrel race unfitting of the original revelation. This can account to a certain degree for the prestige of the Muslim Empires and the rest of the ancient Arab world, as compared to how it is viewed today.

Good write-up, very nice.

I may pick that up one day.

I disagree, clearly the average White person still lives an existence influences by their racial condition.

I life in a small town and people here are still primarily monogamous, hard-working, clean and reasonably intelligent and it would take a lot for them to actually lose that racial element and they would gain it again if given the chance.

A viking is a type of pirate, so you are right about that, these people are not pirates.

Uhm, it introduces foreign elements into the population that will cause conflict, mental poisoning and confusion.

Yeah, the concept of north changes wherever you life. To Nordics in India the North meant the area of the Russian steps, but to a Scandinavian the North means the frigged wastes inhabited by Fins and Eskimo's.

I am talking about genetics, not some religious concept.

I am not a Nativist.

I disagree, both those religions are sickly, hysterical and feminine, clearly the playground of the racially impure, Islam more then Buddhism.

No, Turks are generally somewhat better then Arabs and the like.

There is nothing great or noble or racially pure about Islam.

So my analysis of Evola is most likely right, the man introduces non-racial aspects into the mix.

The path to Cinnabar is Evola’s intellectual autobiography. I’d highly recommend it alongside what is considered to be his main work Revolt Against the Modern World.

I, in turn, would disagree. The modern existence for the average white person is nothing but a pathetic shadow of what it was in Tradition. What you seem to consider to be the dominant racial traits of the average white person is not the same as what I, and more importantly Evola, would posit.

I was speaking more in reference to the adventurous spirit that goes along with the whole Viking schtick. Also, modern research, for what it’s worth, tends to view the Vikings as Traders and settlers as well as pirates.

I would argue the only foreign elements causing confusion are the modern ones. All these religions in their beginnings (excepting Christianity) posited essentially the same set of values and ethics. What you seem to hold up to the spotlight as an Ideal European man, is what would be regarded by Evola as a gross degenerate residue. Furthermore, Evola also posits that all white people descended from the same common Aryan stock, this being the reason for so many points of confluence between all western religions. That is to say, he would not have regarded them as truly foreign. You may cry cosmopolitan, but he would trace it to an older and superior stock of man.

I meant it in a spiritual sense that would be tedious to explain (it isn’t difficult to understand, just to explain).

I would agree insofar as one only considers them as they are regarded by the modern man. Evola speaks of these religions in light of their most ancient Traditions. Both Islam and Buddhism are undisputedly masculine by the by. Not sure where you got that idea. Islam I would agree, is today racially impure.

I disagree. Not much else to say.

I disagree, but would have to cite the origin of Islam, which would be laborious to explain. I will absolutely concede that modern Islam is neither great, noble, nor racially pure.

Your analysis of Evola is completely misguided, I would highly recommend reading Revolt Against the Modern World. Your disagreements with Julius Evola are completely at the surface level, and dialectical in nature. Evola incorporates the Weltanschauung of the original Aryan race into the mix. This comes across as foreign to the modern mind set.

Alright, on my too read list.

Then what are these traits exactly? If it isn't monogamy, work, cleanliness and intelligence?

Well, most White people still travel and explore a lot, most notably the Dutch, so again, that indicates the presence of an active racial soul.

I disagree, it's the modern ones that are most true to our character and you will notice that corruption of our character comes from embracing Christianity and Marxism, not from embracing 19th century philosophy or science.

That's because all those religion where all forms of Indo-European nativism, Baalworship for example, has a completely different set of values.

Never called them the ideal European man.

Yes and no, there is a large difference between Iranian nordics and European nordics, in the first case these people are more mystical, in the second more empirical.

The empicism of the European people goes back to the ancient people that build Stonehenge and other great monuments.

I call him a cosmopolitan, because he mixes in Islam and Buddhism, which are clearly not Nordic, or even White.

Yeah, no north or south in the spirit, or up and down for that matter, there is spirit or there is not.

That is absurd, Muhammed was a sexmaniac, who would beat his own penis and molested a small child, Buddha was an effimate character who refused to do his duty as an noblemen and meditated in the wilderness.

Crime statistics and personal experience tells me otherwise.

It never was and the fact that you are promoting it indicated that Evola has corrupted you.

Seeing how he made you belief that the mongrel religion of Islam is somehow aryan and racially pure, you have succeeded in hardening my disdain against Evola.

Rosenberg (for example) references Zoroastrian or Veddic religion and he thinks that Jesus was most likely not Jewish, but nowhere does he promote Islam or Buddhism.

First and foremost I did not mean to harden your disdain for Evola. I speak in defense of original Islam due to Rene Guenon. Evola himself was far more pagan in orientation. Rene Guenon on the other hand was a Sufi, a sect of Islam. Evola never shilled hard for Islam, outside of his metaphysics of war he almost never talked about it. Evola mainly saw Christianity as a feminine religion that somehow managed to surpass the paganism of the time and gained its greatest elements from said paganism. The "corruption" you mention would if anything come from Guenon, don't not read Evola because of what I've clumsily stated here.

Pretty much every point you posted ties directly into the way in which you approach the world. I would HIGHLY recommend reading the latter section of Evola's Revolt Against the Modern World. The book itself is divided into two parts, the first mainly is a discourse on Tradition itself, but the second is the actual historical developments. The former is the "being" while the latter is the "becoming". It answers all your points far better than I could, I would copy and paste but its quite long and would be several walls of text.

Here is a link:

archive.org/details/RevoltAgainstTheModernWorld

Second part starts on 177.

The original Islam is semitic, any other clainm is an outright lie and fabrication.

Guenon is a cross-eyed, perverted Frenchmen, who betrayed his own race by planting his seed in the womb of some Egyptian harlot.

Essentially a progressive libral.

Fine.

I will read it, though I must warn you, I see a strong emphasis on tradition instaid of race as a sign of mongrelisation.

We Whites don't need tradition, we can create and recreate from the racial soul we possess and it will end up being the same, time and time again.

Tradition is only important, so we can build or our legacy.

I haven't read Chamberlain/Rosenberg, what exactly were there views? Also what would you say are the major influences on the development of your views? I'm curious as to how you've ideologically developed.

Sorry for delay I was called away for seven hours.

The Reich interests me because they included occultists.

Occultists are often heretics.

Very few occultists demonstrate any interesting evidence for paranormal activity. However, many occultists demonstrate great willpower.

Sometimes willpower can be cultivated by doing difficult things.

E.g.: To be a Satanist in medieval Europe was difficult. The people who tried mostly failed, got caught, got punished. Those who succeeded probably didn't get magic powers, but they certainly developed resourcefulness and willpower.

I think he honestly believed that he wasn't writing contradictions. Logic expressed in natural language is hard. As far as I know, Eco was primarily thinking of Mussolini's fascists, and I don't see that he described those fascists incorrectly.

In my case, I used to do a lot of occult practices - meditation, mysticism, positive thinking, yoga, etc. I discovered that positive thinking works much less than it is advertised to work. Further, I discovered that positive thinking can be misused as propaganda to support political indifference. The danger of occultists is that they will stop voting, stop political actions, and believe that society will fix itself by writing three affirmations of gratitude in a notebook every day.

My racial will is probably weak, because I spent a lot of time on personal mystical introspection. I'm in love with the past.

Quality points. I will write on them in detail when I get time, possibly making a new thread if this one dies in the meantime.

That's a loaded question. It's like asking, "Are you so weak that you can't lift this hundred-kilo sack of dog shit?" I might be able to lift it, but I'm disgusted by it and I have other things to do.

Debate contains a little bit of logic, a fair amount of negotiation, and a huge amount of posturing. If we can't negotiate rules for debate, we end up posturing. It's performance art, but it's not debate.

Is that true? I've never known Poles to quarrel verbally as much as Irishmen - then again I havne't known many Poles.

Poles do have pride. I just hope it doesn't start a war between Russia and NATO.

Good ideas, makes me want to start a political occultism thread, but we've already got occultism in this thread….

I could elaborate on Sufism. For the moment, I will say, "Read Idries Shah!" and allow you to state your opinion before I expound.

Okay. Why are there so many white people into occultism?

I frickin' saved your picture. I like your thread so please keep it up good work.

Some of them are racially motivated. These goys often go for Nordic rune magic.

Some of them are just ordinary heretics from small towns, the sort who would have gotten into serious trouble even 100 years ago.

Many of them have had some kind of mystical or psychic experience and want to reproduce it.

Some of them are following anti-Christian propaganda from Jewish sources.

Some of them just need a hobby, and Tarot cards are more fun than scrapbooking.

I mean Wilhelm Reich, the psychologist. Although the occult is a hugely fascinating topic. In fact, one of Reich's pupils (Israel Regardie) went on to integrate body-based osychotherapy and Golden-Dawnian practices.

I have not read much of Wilhelm Reich, aside from _Listen Little Man_.

His cloud-busting experiments might have been pathological science, or perhaps they were not.

Unfortunately, his legacy has been somewhat tarnished by the hordes of uneducated people who want to be considered his successors.

Shameless self-bump

True, and by the fact that for a large part of his life he was an ouspoken communist.

Forget the cloud busting and even the orgone stuff. Reich's greatest achievement is the creation of a body-based approach to psychotherapy and "de-armoring", a kind of Western, scientific yoga without the woo-woo.

Have there ever been authentic Satanists in medieval Europe, though?

Me too, and I like Latina chicks, too. But for procreation racial purity seems important to me.

I completely agree. For serious debate there should be a preliminary "etiquette" first.

For me it's the other way around - I know quite a few Poles, but no Irish. Yes, Poles sometimes have a tendency to snarky sarcasm, passive-agressiveness and renitent petulism (which cost them dearly in and during WW2), but in general I consider them a good people.

Hrm. Probably at some point between Charlemagne and the Eiffel Tower there was at least one genuine Satanist in Europe. Maybe not medieval.

J.K.Huysmans wrote about Satanism in 19th century France. From the sound of it, that took serious effort, so if any of that was true - yes, there were Satanists in France.

And there were lots of guys who tried to make the Satanic grimoires work. Most grimoires are "white" but some are "black." The guys who believed in those should be counted with the sincere Satanists.

Wait, wait, wait, hold up.

I had forgotten that I wanted to discuss what everyone thinks of Carl Gustav Jung, but your mention of psychotherapy reminded me.

Who Jungian in here?

Great Caesar's Ghost, "renitent" is actually a real word in the real dictionary.

collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/renitent

No joy for "petulism." Although I guess you meant "the practice of petulant petulance as a way of life."

He make fascism look so appealing.