/lit/ - Literature

>>22986931
Define fascism

>>22986938
"Fascism (/ˈfæʃJzəm/ FASH-iz-əm) is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy."
Which is a direct copy from Wikipedia, but does encapsulate what I'm trying to better understand. An obvious example would be Nazi Germany.

Lons' Der Wehrwolf was very popular volkisch literature. Also check out Ernst von Salomon's Fragebogen.

If you want to understand it though, I recommend Griffin's Modernism and Fascism. It's a bit of a tedious read but it will give you the picture of what fascism really was: a right-wing socialist alternative to Anglo-American capitalism and Soviet communism, both of which threatened to absorb Europe and eventually did. Everybody knew that these two power blocs were making "total" claims and that they needed the rest of the world to acquiesce to those claims, so that the only two options were (1) become a satellite of one or the other powers' worldviews, (2) create a "third way" alternative. Also, intellectuals in all three blocs knew that the claim of the Anglo-American bloc to being for "liberal democracy" was a sham -- 1890-1920, it was universally accepted in elite discourse that liberal democracy had been a movement of the bourgeois oligarchy of the late 18th and early 19th century, and that it had been superseded by the current challenges facing modern society and the traditional nation-state system.

There was a general consensus that MASS democracy had completely superseded LIBERAL (bourgeois) democracy, and that what was really happening in English-speaking countries was that a new totalitarian alternative was emerging (see Walter Lippmann's call for a new technocratic "public opinion"-shaping class). The point of all this being: nobody thought liberal democracy was still alive, so it's not like fascism was a rejection of it. Fascism indeed claimed to sublimate the mass principle and the democratic principle, just like it claimed to sublimated the socialist principle, just like the Soviets did. The Anglo-American bloc just found it expedient to claim (as it still does) that it was simply continuing 18th century parliamentary republicanism, despite the fact that it too was shifting toward totalitarian apparatuses of control. If you're interested in this, read Schmitt's short Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy.

Fascism was the attempt to figure out what Europe really was and raise it to self-consciousness as an alternative modernity, just as deliberate and coherent as the other two great powers. That's why fascist nations all immediately recognized each other as brothers in a common struggle.

>>22986964
Very good to know, thanks!

Should I bother with the Nazis?

>>22986964
>a right-wing socialist alternative
define "socialist"

>>22986931
Not Junger that's for sure.

>>22986931
SoS sucks

>>22986951
>An obvious example would be Nazi Germany.
National Socialism was not "militaristic." That is just a slanderous claim brought against the Nazis for having the audacity to defend themselves against World Jewry. Hitler made many attempts to avoid war.

I discovered this lovely poem by Robinson Jeffers today, about Hitler:

If you had thrown a little more boldly in the flood of fortune
You’d have had England; or in the slackening
Less boldly, you’d not have sunk your right hand in Russia: these
Are the two ghosts; they stand by the bed
And make a man tear his flesh. The rest is fatal; each day
A new disaster, and at last Vae Victis,
It means Weh den Gesiegten. This is the essence of tragedy,
To have meant well and made woe, and watch Fate,
All stone, approach.

But tragedy has obligations. A choice
Comes to each man when his days darken:
To be tragic or to be pitiful. You must do nothing pitiful.
Suicide, which no doubt you contemplate,
Is not enough, suicide is for bankrupt shopkeepers.
You should be Samson, blind Samson, crushing
Al his foes, that’s Europe, America, half Asia, in his fall.
But you are not able; and the tale is Hebrew.

I have seen a wing-broken hawk, standing in her own dirt,
Helpless, a caged captive, with cold
Indomitable eyes of disdain, meet death. There was nothing pitiful,
No degradation, but eternal defiance.
Or a sheepfold harrier, a grim, grey wolf, hunted all day,
Wounded, struck down at the turn of twilight,
How grandly he dies. The pack whines in a ring and not closes,
The head lifts, the great fangs grin, the hunters
Admire their victim. That is how you should end — for the prophesied
You would die like a dog — like a wolf, war-loser.

>>22987795
Celine's Journey to the End of the Night, would also fit in well
>>22986931
Junger wasn't fascist, he was a based Junker of an older type. He was part of the overall right, but still far apart from the Nat Socs. Despite their different views: Natsocs respected him, and let him spend WW2 chilling in occupied Paris (one of the best places to be stationed)

>>22986931
Runaway Horses
Patriotism

>>22987795
confessions of a mask is mishima's best book imo but it has nothing to do with his politics and honestly calling it right wing is funny because the whole book is about him being a gay degen who jerks off(literally) to violence and it's autobiographical
i know you didn't make the chart lol but i agree with >>22988659

>>22986931
fascism is bug mentality

>>22986951
>far-right
Far-"left" fascism also exists you direction-brain. It's called Stalinism.

>>22987795
>No Der Ring des Nibelungen or essays by Wagner
Very disappointing!

>>22988875
Fascism and National-Socialism are both left wing ideologies that are only considered right wing because they're racist. You cannot refute this.

>>22986931
don't forget my diary desu

>>22988918
It doesn't really fit within either camp really, and that's more a failing of the left/right framing anyway. There's obviously the left wing elements of providing for the people as a whole, and of an obligation to the state, but the middle class and the class structure generally is preserved and corporations are not abolished or totally nationalised but rather linked strongly to the apparatus of the state.

>>22988939
true. it's almost as if politics and philosophy are living evolving things and not a flat line

You all need to read A James Gregor on fascism.

>>22988918
Some people can't get it through their heads that socialism is morally neutral. Socialism = good people economic system, therefore fascists can't be socialists and socialists like Stalin are fascists.

>>22988953

bump

>>22988918
Let me guess, you're a conservative with the most primitive understanding of politics, that you can only conceive of as left vs right. But you don't want to be associated with those evil "nazis" so you have to somehow justify grouping it with left wing ideology.

>>22987739
It's a good read. Most of it probably happened as described and there's no account like Junger's. It's raw and realistic without any forced subtext or themes and from a unique point of view. Fuck off.

>>22989014
quite the opposite my good sir

>>22989036
Then why feel the need to group National Socialism with left wing ideology? In reality it does not belong within the left/right dichotomy of modern politics at all.

>>22989050
for the same reason everyone else uses it despite its near uselessness outside of the french revolution: convenience. yes i could post a political compass or an 8 axes or simply say "i'm a third positionist duuuude" but none of those really work either. so i might as well utilise the left/right dichotomy which even the most brainrot stricken white American can understand.

>>22988679
Bepis

>>22987682
>define "socialist"
Administration of the common weal, not all socialist thought is Marxist or left wing.

>>22988918
Id rather consider them as third position.

You guys are worse than leftists, honestly. None of you even read. If you did, you’d know that this book was written over a decade before Gentile’s Doctrine of Fascism was written and that the book is not remotely fascist. It’s merely a first-hand account of the author’s experience during the war. That author, by the way, distanced himself so far from Nazism (and fascism for that matter) during the 40s that he was actually suspected of being part of a plot to kill Hitler, a crime for which his own son was found guilty of. What kind of fascist tries to assassinate the fuhrer? As for his post-war writings, I don’t see how they could be construed as remotely fascist. It’s almost as if you people don’t actually read the books you talk about and just take liberal license with words until they no longer mean what they’re supposed to mean. I guess anything illiberal is just fascist now.

Look, I get it. I was a dumb undergraduate interested in Evola and Jünger and all of these people once too and I thought and said dumb stuff too. We all have to go through it now. But because I’ve been through that, I can tell you how dumb it is. Now I say this with complete sincerity good intent: talk less and read more. If you must talk, ask questions. One day you’ll know what you’re talking about.

>>22986964
I really have no idea why you would think the Anglo-American bloc still finds it expedient to profess to be the 18th century liberal republics that they’re obviously not. As far as I can tell, exactly 1 of the 2 parties in American even desires that. The other doesn’t desire it all, and neither really professes to be that. Nobody thinks this is a state of Washingtons and Jeffersons anymore, even if Republicans still insist it should be. The Roosevelts successfully transformed both parties into liberal-progressive parties, which are distinguished from liberal parties. Raegan wasn’t an exception. Trump wasn’t an exception. There have been no exceptions. None of them claimed to be. Trump was arguably the most openly progressive Republican in American history.

T
K
D

You might try this list to see what's out there and where you might go at least when it comes to Nazi Germany and understanding where certain ideas lead.

>>22986931
Any recommendations on Gabriel D'Annunzio?

>>22990347
what a trainwreck of a list
start with Rockwell, move on to Covington, tackle MK once you feel ready. you don't need to bother with the rest unless the subject really interests you.
And don't read Hitler's table talk it's bullshit

>>22986931
For My Legionaries - Corneliu Zelea Codreanu

>>22989235
by that definition, wouldn't monarchies be socialist, e.g. the commonwealth of england?

>>22990615
NTA but that list has plenty of interesting items on it and your recommendations are even more idiosyncratic than the list.

>>22986951
>Which is a direct copy from Wikipedia, but does encapsulate what I'm trying to better understand. An obvious example would be Nazi Germany.
Ok, so you 're trying to understand fascism. Cool. First and foremost, the definition you just listed is the liberal worldview definition. It is not "far-right" nor is it inherently "authoritarian". It's actually not most of those things. Italian fascism had a dictator, but British Fascism was an ethnonationalist democracy.
Second, national socialist germany was not fascist, but rather national socialist. National Socialist was more of a morality and economic system whereas fascism was more of a buzzword that basically hinted at its third positionist foundations, where it becomes a bit of a custom blend of whatever the group can come up with.
>inb4 wait what is fascism then?
I'll tell you what third position ist. It's anti-liberal and anti-marxist. It's anti-capitalist, with a heavier emphasis on anti-usury. This is your starting point.

>>22989288
>What kind of fascist tries to assassinate the fuhrer?
ah, but you don't understand (or maybe you do), 'fascist' (like 'incel') is a word that, having been twisted by modernity (and leftists, chiefly), has become quite unmoored from its original meaning.
At any rate, many in the present day would surely call Erwin Rommel or particularly Ludwig Beck 'fascists', despite their involvement in plots to assassinate Hitler. Most unhinged leftists would even call Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord a 'fascist', merely for having been a brilliant man and a Chief of the Army High Command—his total opposition to the Nazis would avail him nothing to those who prefer to substitute history and reality with their own wild imaginings.

>>22988918
Fascism wasnt even racist at the beginning.
>>22986931
How's that a fascista book??

>>22990615
>And don't read Hitler's table talk it's bullshit
christcuck cope

>>22989288
Anyone interested in Junger's right-wing political thought should read the first few chapters of Roger Woods' Conservative Revolution. It's very short.

Your condescension achieves the opposite of what you intend and makes you sound kinda gay.

>>22991232
In some sense, yes. Which is why people cant debate or discuss this topic as they think socialism is entirely muh gubmint, muh marx, etc, muh socialism.

>>22991476
Read his interwar articles too. They express more truth than anywhere else, before the Nazis got in to power and before the Allieds victors justice.

>>22991629
what use is the concept of socialism if it applies so broadly? purely as a way of saying "not capitalism?"

>>22991833
Because it has broad meaning, several ideologies use the same word but give it different meanings. You are exactly the type of person i referred to here >>22991629. You think socialism meams broadly 'not capitalism'. Is it worth having a discussion with you? You have heavily suggested you have read no literature on a complex subject, except that which can be summized on wikipedia.

>>22991855
limiting this to explicitly political books i can remember off the top of my head, in my free time, i've read:
>the analects
>han feizi
>das kapital
>the writings of the luddites
>david graeber's complete works
>carl schmitt's political theology
>hoppe's democracy: the god that failed
>anarchy, state, utopia
and for some undergrad classes:
>plato's republic
>aristotle's politics
>leviathan
>thomas paine
>john locke
>nietszche's genealogy of morals (with its long diatribes about socialism)
>mlk's selected writings
>various history textbooks about european monarchy, the emergence of liberal democracy, the cold war with china and the ussr, etc.
>mao
>lenin
>hitler

i'm familiar with various competing definitions of socialism (the abolition of class structure, the common ownership of the means of production, state administration of industry, etc.), but i'm not interested in the "broad meaning" of socialism. i'm interested in what it means to you, as a fascist.

if, on the fascist view, socialism is really just "administration of the common wealth," then almost any modern government is socialist. i'm happy to have a discussion along those lines. but because the definition is so broad, it gives me no insight as to what "fascism is socialist" means.

i don't think socialism merely means "not capitalism." again, plenty of people offer positive definitions. i'm just pushing back against the one you've presented, since it doesn't seem to say much besides "not capitalism." if there's more to it, i'd love to know.

>>22991884
After supposedly reading all those books, and no dount learning a great deal in the process, what did you say the unfathomably retarded sentence here>>22991833?

>>22989033
>Fuck off.
Good post until this. You just can't ever be neutral.

>>22986938
meanie racist men that I dont like

>>22988918
Real right wing has never been tried.

>>22992528
real right wing was the norm throughout all of history sans the french revolution until wwi happened and everything suddenly went to shit and then wwii happened cementing it.

>>22992528
>>22992541
oh and of course the cold war + pax americana was about spreading this across the globe so there's no escape from it because otherwise they'd prevent emigration potentially causing conflict.

>>22989972
where did you get all that?

>>22992560
Archive.org

Should I read the Dalton or Ford translation?

>>22992659
thank you

>>22986931
I don't think Junger was a fascist just a German conservative, read his essay The Worker. Carl Schmitt and Heidegger were card carrying Nazis but wrote non-fiction. Ezra Pound had clear fascist sympathies.

>>22988659
Mishima wasn't a fascist, just a Japanese nationalist and samurai larper.

>>22992660
Ford.

>>22992691
any reason?

>>22992693
It has a list of the translations and does not attempt to undermine the author or his intentions. All footnotes go towards explaining some of the phrases and metaphors Hitler uses, as well as mention the context it was written in.

>>22987795
I find it weird a /pol/ user apparently made this and no Mein Kampf. Also why is there no John Glubb or Mussolini? Why is Storm of Steel in fiction? This chart is in bad need of an update.

>>22991959
because i'm adopting your definition for the purposes of a discussion, and trying to understand the utility it serves. would you like to answer my question, or are you only interested in posting funny pictures of military men?

>>22993317
Im still struggling to understand how or why you can arrive at any broad or narrow definition of socialism as being 'Not Capitalism'. What made you think adminstration of the common weal, which is not a typo of wealth like you assumed but a specifc word with a specific meaning, is related to capitalism?

>>22993339
perhaps i'm misunderstanding you. what is the "common weal?"

>>22993347
The common weal is the general wellbeing of a group. It may include economics but does not stop there.

>>22992862
As a book Mein kampf is pretty shit

>>22993373
If socialism is "administration of the common weal," and the common weal is "the general wellbeing of a group," then your definition seems so broad that it encompasses most forms of social organization.

Is a large corporation with a working group that "fosters employee well-being" socialist?

Is an Alcoholics Anonymous group socialist, since it looks after the health and spiritual wellness of its members?

Is a synagogue socialist? A mosque? A church?

Can you give some examples of social organizations that don't aim, in at least one way, for a kind of general well-being?

>>22993397
>If socialism is "administration of the common weal," and the common weal is "the general wellbeing of a group," then your definition seems so broad that it encompasses most forms of social organization.
It does look that way, yes. Hence why modern (American) understanding of socialism and related concepts is useless and of no importance.

>Is a large corporation with a working group that "fosters employee well-being" socialist?
Probably not given its focus on profit and not the administration of common weal as there is no such thing in a purely economic association. Perhaps i am wrong but there are two many variables to accurately answer you as you can bring up hundreds of hypotheticals.

>Is an Alcoholics Anonymous group socialist, since it looks after the health and spiritual wellness of its members?
I dont think so as it has no authority over any common weal, you seem to be conflating the individual with the unpossesed common.

>Is a synagogue socialist? A mosque? A church?
Perhaps to some extent.

>Can you give some examples of social organizations that don't aim, in at least one way, for a kind of general well-being?
Ones dedicated entirely to economic pursuits by definition, as there is no common weal only the drive to seek economic success. Those like America too, they have fragmented society to such an individualistic degree that there is no common weal as everybody must compete in all things for the scant resourceses that big business mismanages or forgets. Or those without any kind of State, functional or otherwise. Communist to, as they view people are a resource.

>>22993386
Is it badly written and rambling?

>>22987795
good chart, as commented by other anons need updates. any left-wing chart for research purposes?

>>22991476
You’re a pseud.

>>22991833
Socialism isn't a single, simple theoretical term. It is a broad term by nature and by design, its original meaning in the 19th century having grown in response to "the social question," which is the question of how to integrate the lower orders of workers and producers who are increasingly feeling disconnected from and unrepresented by the existing political structures. This was on everybody's mind for the entire 19th century. For example Bismarck was responding to "the" social question when he enstated welfare programs, partly to bypass the Social Democratic Party's claims to having a monopoly on the issue. But people were obviously divided on whether "the" solution to "the" problem had to be a total revolutionary change of civilizational type, and if so, of what kind.

Marx was one voice among many, and his "communist" (a term he took up from the French left of the early 19th century) definition of socialism is basically a mix of Hegelian, Proudhonian, and general French "utopian" ideas (Fourier, Saint-Simon, Owen, etc.). Ultimately his description of communism is deliberately underdetermined, which it has to be by necessity because (thinking Hegelianly) we are still in the bourgeois moment, and it structures our consciousness, while the proletarian moment is incipient but has not yet arrived. All we can say about the coming proletarian moment is that it will abolish the bourgeois understanding of production relations, or rather the contradictions contained in the bourgeois moment will lead to its self-abolishment and the revelation that the proletarian moment solves and sublimates those contradictions. Mainly by having an understanding of production that is fundamentally cooperative, mutualist, distributive etc. But we can't LEGISLATE for this communist future. We can only help it be born, and then let the people with their new/awakened post-bourgeois, post-capitalist mentality make their civilization in their own image, just as the bourgeoisie has made the current one in its image.

I say all this because it shows that, for all their pretenses to objectivity and scientificity, Marxists do not have some singular textbook definition of socialism either. What is really fundamental is just the fact that it is a response to "the" social question, one response among many, and of course within Marxist discourse there are many interpretations of what it actually means or would actually amount to or was intended by Marx to amount to: anarcho-communism, USSR-style Soviet communism, a sci-fi utopia or a neo-agrarian federalism, etc.

>>22993961
(2)
One thing that virtually all Marxists agree on however is that, by virtue of rationalizing relations of production (in a way the existing bourgeois understanding of economics, and all its myriad ramifications, cannot), a communist society would be post-scarcity, at least to the point of solving "the" social problem, e.g., the problem of there being privileged exploiters who can easily manipulate the state and the hypocrisy of bourgeois democratic forms to benefit themselves while the actual workers and producers who sustain society are toiling in misery or even unable to find work. According to almost any definition of socialism, socialism solves this problem by preventing "irrational" forms of capital accumulation. For example Proudhon made the crucial distinction between ownership of property (including the means of production) which one does not use, and ownership of property one does use, in an attempt to solve the problem of large land-holders and capitalists potentially "owning" most of a country and the country's means of sustaining itself, and simply leasing it out to everybody else. Another example of a "socialistic" idea is the creation of create low-interest, non-profit state loans for workers and farmers so that they can survive bad harvests without being ruined by the debt. A lot of 19th century socialists promoted this idea, and the Social Credit movement was a big example of it.

Fundamentally, a socialist looks at such a situation, or at existing trends which are held to be converging inevitably on such situations, and tries to intervene on behalf of "the whole" - whether that means doing so by dissolving bad structures or building good structures or (if one is a Marxist) revealing good structures latent within bad structures and struggling to be born. A lot of socialists believe in command economies or "total" economies of one form or another - regulated (not necessarily fully planned) by some kind of authority, if not always active then at least always open to appeal and able to be activated. Many social-democratic movements are socialist in this attenuated sense, wishing to preserve free enterprise and what Hegel called the autonomy of civil society. This is obviously especially the case after the failures of the USSR in the 20th century.

Likewise, there have been many kinds of socialists who remain "nationalists," both in the simple sense of believing the modern nation-state ought not to be destroyed willy-nilly (this includes most social democrats, but it also includes Marx and Lenin), and in the sense of making the nation a central pillar or aid to socialist praxis. In other words, when they seek to combat the socially atomizing tendencies of capitalist accumulation, intra- and international usury, and/or alienated ownership of land and productive means, by emphasizing "the whole," some socialists see the nation (variously conceived) as a natural counter-weight or rallying point to these tendencies.

>>22993965
The reasons are obvious: unless one is an utterly absolutist "voluntaristic social contract theorist" on the subject of national identity, some sort of radical 19th century English liberal capitalist or Randian libertarian, then one probably acknowledges that nations tend to be moral and spiritual communities of people who fundamentally like each other. The nation can be a powerful anti-capitalist rallying point for the same reason that Catholic social teaching (another "right-wing socialism") proposed the Catholic religion as a rallying point against capitalism. If we identify capitalism as the inevitable outcome of a purely calculative rationality fused with an amoral individualist ethos - the fusion typical of bourgeois civilization and "modernity" - then it stands to reason that OTHER forms of rationality (spiritual, moral), and other moral systems, can help us combat, balance out, and/or sublimate capitalism. And indeed many socialists have been simultaneously Catholic integralists and nationalists, or simultaneously Protestant pietists or Orthodox mystics and nationalists, or simultaneously Muslims and nationalists, etc. The basic "move" here is the recognition and assertion of the equal or greater status of a non-calculative, non-amoral, non-individualist system of values.

This is of course different from Marx's move, which was to proclaim the "scientificity" and objective reality of the coming proletarian moment, which Marx and Engels predicted as being virtually inevitable in the near future (in his time). They would both be very surprised to find that capitalism did nothing but ramify and reify itself for another century and a half after their deaths, and that great conflagrations like WW1 and WW2 did not lead to the emergence of a genuinely socialist bloc - because they regarded the latter as so self-evidently rational that ANY significantly large series of shocks to the bourgeois-capitalist order (like a World War) would force any sufficiently intelligent nation-state to organize their own production along socialist lines. (Again, thereby demonstrating that proletarian socialism for Marx is a shift of worldview, at a level prior to theory - it is more the recognition of what is self-evidently "not stupid" to do, viz. to organize production rationally, which means socialistically.)

Right-wing socialists and third positionists obviously argue for the theoretical tenability of their own, non-internationalist (or rather, secondarily internationalist but primarily voluntarist-associationist-nationalist) understandings of socialism. But they also frequently gesture to their empirically verified viability, citing examples like the legendary Volksgemeinschaft of the Central Powers in WW1, which basically did function as a communistic "total" (not necessarily synonymous with totalitarian) economy and which, even critics agree, raised the general moral "atmosphere" to an extremely high level.

>>22993970
(4, forgot to add 3)
Basically, the shift of worldview Marx wanted seemed actually to happen for a little while - including socialistic, rationally administered command economies - except it happened in right-wing states during war. Incidentally, it happened in a total war against the leading representatives of global finance-capitalism, England and America; and when the war ended, those powers, rather than simply demanding compensation or conquering their defeated enemy, imposed a rather unprecedented (but very important for understanding the geopolitical nature of the 20th century) treaty designed to humiliate and permanently indebt the Central Powers, and to reshape them in the image of English-American capitalism (and its front, "liberal democracy").

In other words, because they lost their war against the capitalist powers, a war in which they arguably developed true socialist economies and ended class conflict (for the first time in the tumultuous history of modern Germany, all classes and all political parties, including crucially the Social Democrats, united for a single purpose: the zero-sum civilizational showdown between English "Civilization" and German-European "Kultur"), they weren't simply conquered and divided territorially, they were vassalized to the capitalist WORLDVIEW. The goal was to "remake" Germany, of course by emphasizing that the Germany that had gone to war was "sick," "pathological," that "something had gone wrong" to prevent them from becoming "like us," and now we need to work with the "healthy" Germans to make sure this never happens again - by installing a liberal-democratic capitalist regime and intervening (again, somewhat unprecedentedly) in their sovereignty and internal culture to prevent other views from regaining prominence. Of course, all this is in the context of centuries of everyone viewing England as a purely self-interested meddler in continental affairs. Nobody thinks such moves are principled. All of this is just the latest movement in the larger "great game."

Now you have to put yourself in the shoes of European "nationalists" of every variety in the 1920s. The writing is on the wall: English finance is in the ascendant and will probably conquer the world if allowed to continue on its track; America is rising to be another financial and industrial titan alongside England, and its culture has recently sloughed off all the elements that Europeans actually admired and read about in the mid-19th century, all those hardy Jeffersonian elements, now replaced by utter domination from the urban financial capitals (New York especially), unimaginable squalor and philistinism, and jazz music (in with "negroes" are, to a European, shockingly prominent) and the precursors of what we now call "pop culture"; France is now like Spain after its Golden Age, slumping into an economic and cultural vassal of England.

>>22993974
(5)
And now, in the east, the "sick men of Europe," tsarist Russia and the Ottoman Empire, have utterly collapsed, leading in the latter case to infinite new avenues for financial imperialism, and in the former case to Russia's replacement by a headless behemoth-empire. Two types of stories were constantly coming out of Sovietizing Russia for two straight decades: (1) They are raping, murdering, torturing, and pillaging on an apocalyptic level, including especially priests and churches, basically everything that is good and noble is being ground under the boot-heel of an atheistic demon-empire, and (2) Any day now they are going to spill over all of Europe like the Mongols, they have no respect for diplomacy or sovereignty, they are simply going to do to Europe what they just did to the Russians.

Now imagine you're a Freikorps member who feels betrayed by the "backstab" of the leftist revolutionaries, and you feel Germany only survived stuff like the Bavarian revolution by the skin of its teeth after the war, and is now not even allowed to have a standing military, despite France actively making deals in the east to encircle Germany once more, and despite the Bolsheviks rampaging and it only being a matter of time before they invade Europe (again, just another phase in the great game). Or imagine you're in Italy, a completely corrupt and divided shithole, and you see what has already happened to France about to happen to you, while at the same time you see the "red scare" (biennio rosso) occurring with nothing strong enough to challenge it - even though it's just as mindless and headless as the Bolsheviks, and will simply undermine the country and throw the gates open to them; also it is composed of a suspiciously large number of losers who simply hate Italy, and outsiders (like Jews), like every communist movement. So what are your options?

>>22993979
(6)
Well, if you're in Germany you start to (1) think of traditions other than Anglo-capitalism and Russian Bolshevism, while (2) being mindful of the social problem - not just as something to be dealt with, but as a possible source of strength AGAINST Anglo-capitalism and Russian Bolshevism. You realize that the quasi-Burkean, merely self-interested capitalist-agrarian Junker conservatives of the 19th century are hopelessly out of date, and that the merely monarchist-nationalist power politics of the last generation are too. But then you start to notice that there has always been another set of "conservative" and "nationalist" traditions in Germany, traditions emphasizing what came to be called Kultur in WW1, and that these can be combined into what one could broadly call völkisch (folk or popular) socialism - völkisch, like the Volksgemeinschaft (folk- or people's-community; cf. Tönnies' distinction between Gesellschaft und Gemeinschaft) that empirically just worked perfectly well, in the largest and most devastating war of all time, and in its aftermath, when it was necessary to pull together and miraculously suppress internal divisions like in the Bavarian (while the equally frightening Hungarian "Soviet" revolution was happening just next door).

You also notice that there have always been interesting thinkers who attempted to sublimate bourgeois modernity and capitalism into something less naive on the geopolitical front, something more capable of defending itself against what just happened and what is currently happening - thinkers like Friedrich List and Rodbertus and Fichte (in The Closed Commercial State), as well as romantic "corporatists" like Adam Müller, and the very sincere anarcho-völkisch socialism of Richard Wagner (whose close friend was Bakunin). Their thought may be rough or preliminary in places, it may be a century old, but somehow it speaks more to present realities than all the bourgeois economics the English are promoting and (evidently) the proudly atheist-materialist-nihilist Marxism embodied in both the USSR and the cringe-inducing local communists (all turncoats and losers).

>>22993988
(7)
So you go back to the roots of the social question, to the days when the polysemy of the term was one of its best features, and you ask: is it possible to create an alternative modernity, one not founded on the sort of amoral individualism and calculative rationality promoted by our English conquerors and (implicitly) by the Marxist behemoth currently trampling the Russian people and Orthodox religion into the dust in the east? Can we gather all these traditions, whether socialist, völkisch, corporatist, etc., and synthesize a total alternative to the worldview and world-system of English capitalism, and its American dauphin? Surely it's encouraging that the last two generations or more have been converging precisely on anti-materialistic, anti-nihilistic, anti-bourgeois tendencies and outlooks - with groups like the Wandervögel and deutsche Jugendbewegung, but also in almost all artistic and cultural tendencies. As Ezra Pound said once:
>London stank of decay back before 1914 ... After the War death was all over it. Italy was, on the other hand, full of bounce. ... London is dead, Paris is tired, but here the place is alive. What they don’t know is plenty, but there is some sort of animal life here. If you put an idea into these people they would DO something.

Different strains within this new nationalist-socialist or conservative-socialist or völkisch-socialist discourse are obviously going to have different emphases. Some, like Spengler's "Prussian socialism" and Arthur Moeller van den Bruck's "German socialism," will seek to sublimate and integrate the concept of socialism in a way that is so völkisch that Marxist socialists can barely recognize it. Others, especially artists influenced by the Nietzschean tenor of the age like Jack London, will emphasize the "heroic" aspects of socialism: the struggle to create a moral, spiritual society of "aristocrats of the soul," in a gigantic crusade against materialism and nihilism (typically represented by English philistinism, American hedonism, and Bolshevik barbarism). Others will be more truly influenced by left-wing socialist thought, either moving from a social-democratic-cum-nationalist position to a nationalist-cum-social-democrat position, or being outright leading Marxist theorists, like Werner Sombart and moving toward a self-conscious sublimation of what is valid in Marx's thought into a nationalist framework. There are also "National Bolshevists" and Strasserites who claim various levels of allegiance to Marxist or Leninist theory, or simply draw on the Leninist revolution for inspiration.

The goal for all these groups and thinkers is still a "cancellation" of the bourgeois and capitalist mentality, but not within a moral framework rather than a scientistic framework, which (it is claimed) is ultimately founded on the same bourgeois sins as the capitalist: amoral individualism and the cult of calculative rationality.

>>22993995
(8)
Now imagine you're in Italy instead of Germany, and you're another leading Marxist theorist. But it quickly becomes apparent that the divisions in the Italian nation are so great that any future conflict will make at least economic, and probably also political vassalization inevitable. The cultural and administrative "core" of the nation (its elite discourse) is so weak and corrupt that it is basically keeping a decrepit pseudo-bourgeois version of Italy on indefinite life-support instead of letting it die the death it deserves and be reborn. You and several other capable readers of Marx, like Enrico Corradini, begin extending the structural analysis of bourgeois civilization to the geopolitical level, and realize that a "proletarian revolution" is fanciful and simply ignores geopolitical realities (see Corradini's "proletarian nations") - unless one is willing to trample absolutely everything in the dust, like the Bolsheviks are currently doing, and even this will simply lead to chaos and thus to the "destruction in detail" by English and American imperialism.

Furthermore, you notice that the syndicalist tradition coming out of France, which always had nationalist accents, has started to meld even further with nationalism. Drawing on the works of the most significant French philosopher of recent times, Bergson, a very capable Marxist theorist named Georges Sorel is arguing for - no surprise at this point - a moral and heroic rather than a scientific interpretation of socialist struggle against capitalism, and his theory holds a lot of water. He is also an impassioned and effective anti-bourgeois writer, which makes it all the more interesting to read him in tandem with the writings of the Cercle Proudhon, calling themselves "national syndicalists" and proclaiming the convergence of a "third position" above both weak, effeminate leftism and hypocritical, atavistic bourgeois democracy (see Sternhell's Neither Right nor Left). As in the German case, "left-wing socialism" is either a naked fifth column or an ineffectual atavism. But allegiance to the pseudo-bourgeois state is equally idiotic and simply means eventual vassalization. So you naturally seek a dialectical synthesis of the nation and the socialist cause, drawing the best (heroism, moral determination, duty-consciousness, desire to create a better world) from both movements.

>>22994000
(9)
Now imagine either of these movements has been in power for a few years, and the Great Depression hits. The western financial powers go straight down the shitter, but your nation recovers in record time, and there is even a general sense of optimism and solidarity everywhere - the kind of thing the USSR constantly proclaims on propaganda posters, but never actually succeeded in accomplishing. Whatever complaints you might have, it is almost exactly like the vaunted Volksgemeinschaft in WW1. Also, all those welfare state initiatives that were considered utopian half a generation ago are now implemented on a daily basis. Once again: your state actually does what the USSR merely proclaims it is doing. The closest left-wing analogue is "Red Vienna," on a smaller scale, the initiatives of which are comparable. So it is hard to deny that your state is socialist in a meaningful sense, in fact in many meaningful senses, again reflecting the polysemy the term, which now seems to be reflective of its positive synthesis with nationalism.

Then WW2 happens, and you manage to fight basically the entire planet, again because of that Volksgemeinschaft and the new natural aristocracy that has formed. The people you conquer (out of necessity, like the French) or bring into your sphere of influence (out of geopolitical inevitability, like the Hungarians) generally recognize the validity of the new bloc that you are forming, although plenty of mistakes are made and imperfections abound, as in any war. But most people generally acknowledge that the old binary, Kultur vs. Civilization, does reflect a genuine conflict between western capitalism and European whatever-this-is, right-wing socialism.

Now the eastern communists start to critique you for not being "true socialism," while their leader is busy murdering millions of people and having all his friends tortured to death or murdered gruesomely like some novel of Byzantine intrigue. And the western capitalists critique you for not respecting "freedom" - while their citizens live in squalor, crime is rampant, and they produce more and more filth by the day. The capitalists start to talk about "free enterprise," while at the same time their leading intellectuals like Walter Lippmann are writing openly about how democracy is a complete sham and the state needs to "manage" its citizens, who are basically mindless cattle. In response, your intellectuals, like Max Weber and Carl Schmitt, write perfectly cogently about how the combined economic and geopolitical realities of the 20th century reflect the total breakdown of laissez-faire economics (which has long been dead) and the end of the major phases of the industrial and financial revolutions and thus the end of "internal colonization" as a meaningful source of growth - with the result that the industrialized and financialized states will now turn outward to meet their needs, leading to emergent geopolitical tendencies.

>>22994009
(10)
The difference between your state and the western capitalist states is that the western capitalist states claim that the answer is a doubling-down, a simple return to naive belief in liberal economics and endless internal colonization - again, even as their own best intellectuals are saying this is impossible and that capitalism is an ambivalent cybernetic organism (more or less) - while your state simply acknowledges that new forms of economic regulation and association are emerging, more or less proving Marx right that a "total" economy is inevitable. Once again there is a diversity of opinions as to how this "totality" functions or ought to function: there are totalitarians and then there are corporatists like Othmar Spann who seem almost downright libertarian in their desire for decentralization, and the preservation of "free enterprise" / Hegelian civil society, whenever and wherever possible.

Epilogue: WW2 ends, you lost. The southern mafia that was suppressed by the Iron Prefect in about a year, after centuries of being uncontrollable, is supported by the Americans, returns just as quickly, and is once again mysteriously impossible to suppress forever after. The generation raised in the evil Hitler Youth, the same one that held out against inhuman odds, rebuilds Germany at superhuman speed, and then watches in sadness as the first post-war generation grows up to be lazy hippies who know nothing but American pop culture (see Alexander von Plato, "The Hitler Youth generation and its roles in the two postwar German states," in Mark Roseman, ed., Generations in Conflict: Youth Revolt and Generation Formation in Germany, 1770-1968 [Cambridge, England, 1995]). The whole WW1/Versailles charade is recapitulated, with symbolic humiliations like forcing poets not to write poetry because they supported the wrong side, or executing people out of petty revenge for supporting their chosen homeland (William Joyce). Americanism, including American-style squalor ("free enterprise") seep slowly into Europe - taking an extra generation or two to catch up with some of the countries where people still bear themselves like human beings, as a result of being raised by a different sort of regime.

But they do catch up, until every country looks like the same dump, and the only permitted opinions are ones that would have seemed insane and demonic to any preceding generation in human history. And now when you say that you admire some of the accomplishments of those regimes, you are told that they "were just capitalism in decay" - whereas what we experience now is capitalism in full-swing, the solution to which is another hundred years of tolerating it while neurotic chatroom denizens read Marx and converge with the capitalists in nearly every significant opinion they have.

>>22993995
>So you go back to the roots of the social question, to the days when the polysemy of the term was one of its best features, and you ask: is it possible to create an alternative modernity, one not founded on the sort of amoral individualism and calculative rationality promoted by our English conquerors and (implicitly) by the Marxist behemoth currently trampling the Russian people and Orthodox religion into the dust in the east? Can we gather all these traditions, whether socialist, völkisch, corporatist, etc., and synthesize a total alternative to the worldview and world-system of English capitalism, and its American dauphin? [...] Then WW2 happens, and you manage to fight basically the entire planet
Fascism was a unity of contradictions, like a dark shadow of both Western liberalism (and colonialism, imperialism) and Soviet communism, mimicking various forms of both but existing only as a reactive embrace of the abyss in response to both of them, rising out of the depths of the Europe's stricken heart. You gather a bit of traditions from the megalomania from Rome to the Holy Roman Empire to Napoleon, to the fanatical hatreds and horror of the Thirty Years' War and 19th century nationalisms, the close-mindedness of Lutheran princes and war-lust of the 18th-century Kabinettskrieg, combined with the populist violence of the French Revolution and the Peasants’ Revolt, all churned up through the blender of World War I into the Jekyll to the Hyde of the Enlightenment.

At its deepest, it's not about the 14 words or political agendas or what have not -- those are mere shadows people attached to the sickeningly desperate fellatio for war with All Modern Evil. Yours definitely takes the cake, in laying out it perfectly. Its one of the case where philosophy, artistry and real-world politics collide -- where human desires manage to overturn rational planning entirely. There were no contradictions within fascism, for fascism itself was the contradiction.

There was a movie called Kolberg that was made late in the Third Reich set during the Napoleonic Wars which an opening scene that's an odd mixture of the volkisch past with totalitarian mass politics.
https://youtu.be/lsoQOQvNrAw

>>22994016
>what we experience now is capitalism in full-swing, the solution to which is another hundred years of tolerating it while neurotic chatroom denizens read Marx and converge with the capitalists in nearly every significant opinion they have.
If anything, I think a lot of people are sick of culture "war" (which is related to the madness and desire for war) that has been perpetuated by both sides of the spectrum and want something resembling progress. Of course, this is my personal prediction based on the people I've talked to. Which is the good thing about that desire -- it doesn't last long. "They will eat one another at last, and leave the rest of us here and there in the world, still alive." -- Philip K. Dick

>>22986951
National Socialism and Facism are NOT the same.
>Fascism is totalitarian (nothing outside of the state), NS is authoritarian (gives way for personal enterprise)
>Fascism sees the state as an end, where's for NS it is the means for an end, specifically the preservation of the race.
>Fascism has no conception of race.

Those are the ones I remember.
If you want to read about NS thought here are some books:
>Mein Kampf (start off with this one, Stalag translation)
>The Programme of the NSDAP (Gottfried Feder)
>Blood and Soil (Walther Darré)
>The German State on a National Socialist Foundation (Gottfried Feder).
>The Myth of the 20th Century (Alfred Rosenberg; although it's incredibly boring, delirious and does not constitute official ideological material).

As for Fascism, start off with the Fascist doctrine, by Giovanni Gentile.

>>22994120
>Fascism was a unity of contradictions
What are these manifold contradictions? Please be as specific as possible.

> There were no contradictions within fascism, for fascism itself was the contradiction.
In what way did this take place and what was the result to the nation caused by it?

>>22994120
All civilizations, all societies, and all movements are unities of contradictions. Everything in life is a unity of contradictions. Unity and multiplicity are contradictory concepts. Synthesis takes place when the relevant force underlying the "contradictory" entity cares about it enough to hold it together. The formal cause follows from the final cause. In nature that's God's will or whatever you like, in politics it's the will of the people. The French defeated everybody in the Revolution because they had the elan vital, because they loved France and human freedom. Right now there's some guy working double overtime to help others even though it's killing him, because he thinks it's the right thing to do.

At the end of the day there are two options in politics: embrace teleology by trying to get as many of these people and as much elan vital together as possible, and to hold it together as long as possible, or be a cynic and view the whole world as a farce in which these things will simply play themselves out as they must. The nice thing is, even in the former type of society, there is plenty of room for the world-weary cynic. But in a society built by cynics, there is no room for anything but cynicism.

>>22993961
>>22993965
>>22993970
>>22993974
>>22993979
>>22993988
>>22993995
>>22994000
>>22994009
>>22994016

Plz archive, want to read in depth.

god i hate this fucking site

>>22987795
>filtered by Savitri

many such cases

>>22991476
Stupid and old debate. You're wrong,

>>22987811
Mind-broken

>>22993524
What do you mean by saying "there is no common weal" in America? People talk about "the public good" all the time, and go to impressive lengths for it. People volunteer to staff elections, administer homeless shelters, clean nature reserves, and so on. Do these things not contribute to the common weal?

Likewise, in the AA example, we have a group of peers who give the group authority to monitor their habits and ensure they aren't drinking. Besides the strictly pragmatic aspect, there's also a spiritual element, ceremonies commemorating progress, and standard ways of "giving back."

I'm guessing there's more to the common weal than just the well-being of a group, and we haven't discussed those specifics yet. Does it have to be a certain kind of group? What distinguishes several individuals working to better each other from an "unpossessed common?"

>>22993970
>one probably acknowledges that nations tend to be moral and spiritual communities of people who fundamentally like each other
Most of what you said makes sense, but this seems about as far removed from reality as one can get. Even small, relatively homogeneous countries like Germany, France, and Italy have tremendous internal divisions: urban/rural, rich/poor, conflicting religious identities, etc.

The notion that Bolognese and Sicilian people "fundamentally like each other" is wrong. Likewise for Northern and Southern Englishmen. In fact, these divisions are often stronger than trans-national divisions. As an American traveling in Europe, I found myself treated reasonably well everywhere. But when I happened to share a table with a Bavarian and a Saxon, I saw more hostility between them than between Greeks and Turks.

Now, you might say something along the lines of: "A-ha! Bavaria and Saxony are two different nations, and they've only been forced to share a common government!" But this is just a "no true Scotsman." Within Bavaria, there are debates about who's "really Bavarian," and the same is true of Saxony. If we treat any divided group as "really more than one nation," then we'll slice the globe up into ten thousand little tribes, none of whom can accumulate enough sovereign power to form a modern nation-state.

More broadly, if your politics relies on an absence of internal conflict, it's plainly inferior to one of coalition-building. This is why the 20th century fascist project failed. Whatever the politics of the future is, it's a global politics.

>>22994850
you are, yes
https://archive.org/details/wtwrh/mode/2up

>>22994898
Everything hinges on Schmitt's distinction between inimicus and hostis. Your neighbor, your coreligionist of a slightly different sect, or your own family member might be an inimicus, but in the presence of a hostis you both suddenly find that you are not hostes. The Kingdom of France was a congeries of historical principalities, languages, cultures, and disunited classes, but being at war with Europe made it the French nation in about 25 minutes. The men who first instated the Zollverein knew that 1871 was inevitable. Hitler was proven right that Austria wanted to be part of Großdeutschland more than it didn't. Contrariwise, Yugoslavia didn't pan out, and Turkey proved that Turks fundamentally see themselves more as Turks than as Ottoman subjects. Borderline cases include Scotland and England (cf. Ireland), Spain and Catalonia, etc. The very presence of the implicit question "are we more like Scotland or more like Ireland?" in Catalan minds itself impels the dialectic that will sooner or later answer the question. That's just how history works. A people is a "dwelling-together" just like a family or community is.

Internal conflict is never ABSENT from any nation. It's just mediated. Only in the worst cases does it breakdown entirely. And history almost always "weighs" on the side of ethnic and national solidarity. For example one of the greatest moments of all time proving this is the decision of the Social Democratic Party in Germany in 1914 to support Germany first, not socialism first. The Russians made a similar choice in the February Revolution, and the consensus it reflected was only overturned violently.

No one is saying fascism is idyllic. At its core it simply stems from the basic recognition that communities exist and share a way of life.

>Whatever the politics of the future is, it's a global politics.
No one is denying this. I recommend Schmitt's Nomos of the Earth.

bump

>>22993988
>You also notice that there have always been interesting thinkers who attempted to sublimate bourgeois modernity and capitalism into something less naive on the geopolitical front, something more capable of defending itself against what just happened and what is currently happening - thinkers like Friedrich List and Rodbertus and Fichte (in The Closed Commercial State), as well as romantic "corporatists" like Adam Müller, and the very sincere anarcho-völkisch socialism of Richard Wagner (whose close friend was Bakunin). Their thought may be rough or preliminary in places, it may be a century old, but somehow it speaks more to present realities than all the bourgeois economics the English are promoting and (evidently) the proudly atheist-materialist-nihilist Marxism embodied in both the USSR and the cringe-inducing local communists (all turncoats and losers).
That's a very interesting perspective anon, you've given me some new names to read up on.

>>22994981
Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems like this view just says "people set their differences aside, and rally together around common enemies." That's true in plenty of cases, but there are also many counterexamples.

The USSR's internal politics tended away from ethnicity or religion; often Arabs and Mongols co-chaired councils. China's work with the US against the USSR was positively anti-ethnic; rather than ally with their racially-similar neighbors, they chose a population of foreigners. Likewise for contemporary Afro-Chinese relations, wherein African nations snub one another to win the favor of China.

It's fine to say that race is a factor in politics. Nobody denies that. But making it primary would blind you to decades of recent history.

More broadly, I'm still not seeing the grounding for the inimicus/hostis distinction. If it's as simple as "this group of people I dislike isn't trying to kill me, but that group is," then it's a fragile state of affairs, and therefore a risky thing to build a national project on. But maybe I'm missing something.

>>22996855
It's a descriptive theory, not a normative one. Concept of the Political does a good job of showing the clash between descriptive and normative/ideal theories, because it describes the progressive attempt to "neutralize" politics and turn it either into a purely rational or purely dialogical space that brackets out all possibility of total breakdown of communication and thus true conflict. He even extends the analysis as far as considering a Kojevian world-state. In all these cases, the manifest fact is that people DO drop out of the dialogical process (in Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy he calls it the "endless conversation" which is the ideal of the liberal worldview and its attempt to solve political conflict for good), people DO go to war.

As Augustine said, peace is the end of all things, including war. But war will always exist, and people will always have irreconcilable differences and mutual misunderstandings that can only be solved, or are best solved, by just living apart. I don't like the French. I don't know why, I just don't like them. But it's even more complicated than that: I like them at a distance. I admire French culture and history on a personal level but I just don't like the French.

Probably the majority of political distinctions are made apriori by basic feelings like this. Why don't all Scandinavian countries unite, given their cultural similarities? Because they don't want to. Familiarity breeds contempt and minor differences are felt more keenly than major ones.

You are probably mistaking this basic outlook, which is closely related to Dugin's ideal of multipolarity for the global order (which Schmitt was also trying to achieve), for some kind of glorification of conflict for its own sake. Both Schmitt and Dugin are just criticizing the hypocrisy of the liberal world order which claims that anybody who doesn't want to accept its culture is "sick." It's more honest to just say "I don't like you enough to live with you, but if you don't bother me too much we can be neighbors or even friends."

>>22986931
Junger was a gigachad and an intellectual who loved war. He had nothing to do with nazis as he never liked the idea of not having a king.

>>22997930
Slightly more complicated than that

>>22998772
He just hates the bourgeois, and disliked that the NSDAP became popular.

>>22997895
>It's a descriptive theory, not a normative one.
Sure, but it doesn't seem to offer a very good description of global politics. If this volkish sentiment is the main political driving force, we'd expect the 20th century to have gone very differently. On a purely descriptive front, realpolitik seems to most accurately predict the behavior of world leaders, including many self-proclaimed nationalists.

Historically, the centers of finance (and therefore power) have been cosmopolitan port cities: Athens, Venice, New York, Hong Kong, and so on. By their nature as port cities, almost every ethic type made homes there, both permanent and temporary. Every nation-building project involves building such a city, since it acts as a hub for both supply chains and abstract capital -- the building-blocks of a functional war machine. In a modern, globalized society, even the act of "dropping out of the dialogical process and going to war" depends on these urban hubs.

A realpolitik framework can account for this phenomenon easily. People in power want to keep their power, so they support these cosmopolitan ecosystems in order to do so. A Marxist could similarly explain cosmopolitan cities as the inevitable result of capital moving across borders -- all capital has owners, and either the owners or their vassals must travel with. But from my vantage point, this vibes-based theory of ingroups and outgroups can't account for the existence of cosmopolitan centers.

To further complicate Schmitt's picture, let's leave mass politics for a moment, and think at the level of the family. We see some self-sorting behaviors in e.g. gated communities, where people pay inflated prices for homes in a particular suburb with a particular religious or ethic makeup. On the other hand, we see many people migrating away from their religious/ethic/geographical origin to urban centers, suburban neighborhoods with higher quality education for their children, or pursuing travel for its own sake (e.g. "van life").

If there's an impulse to raise my children around others like myself, there's an equal impulse to be around new and interesting people, and an even greater impulse to give them a complete picture of the world, so they can choose their own path.

Again, if we consider volkish sentiments as one factor among many, then we can paint a sensible picture, both at the level of individual families and at the level of nation-states. But suggesting that it's the only, or even merely the primary, force is obviously wrong. Even the act of fighting for a world in which we value particular kinship relations necessitates zones where such relations are secondary to the flows of resources.

>>22998772
>>22998934
He never liked NS. He wrote an early essay against them.
For anyone else read this >>22994672

>>22990384
Read the biography by Tom Antognini. Not the Lucy-Hallet one!

>>22999372
This is wrong btw Junger quite literally addresses Hitler as his Fuhrer before Hitler had even become chancellor. So yes, he did like NS at least for a time.

>>22999372
>>22994672

This is the problem here, you think a dislike of aspects of some system is condemnation for the whole system. This is never true, especially for historical records.

The man who was a nationalism, an ethnology-centrist (against Slavs and Eastern Europeans), a war veteran, a firm authoritarian and ardent fan of authoritarian forms of government. Because he deplored of Hitler's antisemitism and other actions does not at all mean he was anti-Nazi. The man severed fully in the Wehrmacht and was dear friends of many of the top Nazi thinkers like Schmitt. Because you have disagreements within the system does not mean one wishes to see the system overturned.

Read Junger's interwar essays. They're easily available. The fact that he was allowed to write, publish and more and did not overtly criticize the regime suggests a far more amiable relationship than Wikipedia would have you believe.

>>22988953
>the level of mental gymnastics in this post

>>23002248
This is cope. You need Junger because NS hasnt produced any writing itself.

>>23002354
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottbegnadeten_list

MODS /pol/ is leading again...

>>23002580
Leading the way to Argentina!

>>23002587
what was hitler's stance on booze?

>>22988918
I refute you.
Fascism and Nat'l Socialism are socially right wing and economically left wing. They are the vanguard of the "3rd Position" in politics.

>>22992862
Nobody on /pol/ actually gives a shit about shitler, it was just ironic memeing that originated from (((their))) projections, which newfags have picked up on and have started unironically aping.

>>23004125
define 'socially right wing'

>>23005268
Anti-womans liberation, nationalistic, can be pro-colonialism, usually dislike the jews, positive opinions on religion and tradition. That type of stuff.

>>22987811
As a literal nazi what sort of retard do you have to be to think Nazism wasn't militaristic

>>22989972
Decline of the West is banned?

>>22994497
Agreed. I’m reading “The Lightning and the Sun” right now and it’s definitely not “batshit crazy.”

>>23005476
Not banned, but it is not permitted in academic circles.

>>23005777
But what is crazy is how far right translators and editors—people supposedly obsessed with a high degree of perfection and order—can’t keep a ridiculous amount of typos out of their PDFs. It’s embarrassing.

>>23005298
The Nazi's were revolutionary and reactionary. They did not care about tradition or religion, they actively tried to change both. Your view of 'Right Wing' is based on American style boomer conservatism.

National-Socialism is a mix of realpolitik from all aspects of the political spectrum. What you can call Left, another can make a case for it being Right. If it fulfilled a goal set out, it did not matter from where the idea came from. The ideology was the end result, not the way to obtain it.