/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19618916]

Guys i'm on the verge of becoming a fascist, and i'm not even an incel larper, i'm well aware of historical events (or at least as far as the mainstream sources go), i've read and been a participant in different leftist events.

But sometimes i really feel like the fascists got a point, about tradition, about family, about order and honour.

Can you please remind me what's so wrong about it????

[Anonymous No.19618928]

>>19618916
>Can you please remind me what's so wrong about it????
Nothing. But sounds like you're a traditional conservative, not a fascist. Fascists are about endless war, endless enemies and hyper authoritarian.

[Anonymous No.19618930]

>>19618916
Nothing. It is the only way forward. Evolve or Die.

[Anonymous No.19618936]

>>19618916
Arbitrary power always ends up consuming itself.

[Anonymous No.19618944]

>>19618928
But not all fascists were authoritarian, there are examples like the Stepan Bandera who only wanted the best for their own and that's it.

I feel that fascism is the only way to preserve a healthy society.

[Anonymous No.19618964]

>>19618916
>Can you please remind me what's so wrong about it????
Nothing, it's humanities final form. It should be used to protect, not to conquer (it this doesn't help protect)

>>19618936
>Arbitrary

[Anonymous No.19618971]

>>19618964
Can you recommend me more books about it?
I want to inform myself.

[Anonymous No.19618984]

>>19618944
>I feel that fascism is the only way to preserve a healthy society.
But you don't seem like a fascist. Why not traditionalism or conservatism?

[Anonymous No.19618990]

You don't have to be a fascist to value those things, although you don't have to not be a fascist either. Some reactionaries and conservatives also value aristocracy, although a fascist could argue that these supposed aristocrats are actually hold-overs from a bygone age who have been collaborating with the bourgeoisie for centuries now. The Prussian junkers, the Austrian aristocracy, the British peerage and the French nobility all sold out and become glorified capitalists. The junkers became capitalist farmers in Prussia, bringing in Polish scab labor and showing their "aristocratic paternalism" and "organic connection with their peasants" by buying their peasants out of their ancestral land for cheap, and then sending them off to be landless laborers in Berlin.

Fascism would argue that aristocracy is not tied to a feudal landlord class from bygone history but to nobility of character:
>Contrary to what is usually thought, it is the man of excellence, not the common man who lives in essential servitude. Life has no savour for him unless he makes it consist in service to something transcendent. Hence he does not look upon the necessity of serving as an oppression. When, by chance, such necessity is lacking, he grows restless and invents some new standard, more difficult, more exigent, with which to coerce himself. This is life lived as a discipline — the noble life.
>Nobility is defined by the demands it makes on us — by obligations, not by rights. Noblesse oblige. "To live as one likes is plebeian; the noble man aspires to order and law" (Goethe). The privileges of nobility are not in their origin concessions or favours; on the contrary, they are conquests. And their maintenance supposes, in principle, that the privileged individual is capable of reconquering them, at any moment, if it were necessary, and if anyone were to dispute them. ... It is annoying to see the degeneration suffered in today's speech by a word so inspiring as "nobility." For, by coming to mean for many people hereditary "noble blood," it is changed into something similar to common rights, into a static, passive quality which is received and transmitted, something inert. But the strict sense, the etymon of the word nobility, is essentially dynamic. Noble means the "well known," that is, known by everyone, famous, he who has made himself known by excelling the anonymous mass.

Fascism can mean a lot of things to a lot of people. But a good starting point is in knowing you value certain transcendent and moral principles so highly that you take their destruction through financial parasitism, bourgeois values, or demographic dilution to be an act of war, which justifies fighting back against these things and their perpetrators. Everything else is downstream of that basic feeling of love for and faith in a people and its "health," like love for one's family. You can even be an international fascist and try to help all nations discover their own unique health.

[Anonymous No.19618997]

>>19618984
Why do you relate fascism with violence?

[Anonymous No.19619010]

>>19618990
Which book is this?

[Anonymous No.19619013]

>>19618997
What do you mean?

[Anonymous No.19619016]

Here's your fascist point on the family.

[Anonymous No.19619021]

>>19618971
Try reading the collected speeches of Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera. It's not a long book and you can read individual speeches quickly so it will give you a sense quickly. Also read Codreanu's For My Legionaries.

Read Zeev Sternhell, A. James Gregor for Italian Fascism and French integralism and national syndicalism.

For the metahistorical and metapolitical aspects of fascism and why the international financial world order (Anglo-American and Jewish) is obsessed with destroying it, read:
https://counter-currents.com/tag/breaking-the-bondage-of-interest/
and be on the lookout for Gottfried Feder and Walther Darre.

Maurice Bardeche is also good:
https://counter-currents.com/2013/10/the-fascist-dream-part-1/
>This new image of man is what is essential. The characteristics of fascism, we have seen, are disputable, and only a small number of those we have examined have been retained in a logical definition of fascism. The single party, police methods, propaganda, Caesarism, the very presence of a Führer are not necessarily attributes of fascism; still less an alliance with reactionary politics, the refusal of control and open membership to the masses, the inevitability of prestige operations and military raids.

>A firm and stable direction of the nation, the primacy of the national interest over private interests, the necessity of a discipline loyally accepted by the country, are the true political foundations of fascism, those that emerge from its very definition. Power may be exercised in a fascist state by a central committee, a council, or a junta as well as by a designated leader; such rule need not be brutal and abusive. It can also be tolerant and supple. The essential political instrument of fascism is the role that it grants to a minority of disinterested and committed militants capable of leading by the example of their own lives and to bear the message of a just, loyal, and honesty polity. The famous fascist methods are thus constantly and ceaselessly reevaluated. What is more important than mechanisms is the idea that fascism has of man and freedom.

This is also similar to Evola's definition of fascism, and why he called himself a "superfascist," a higher ideal fascist and thus above any contingent historical fascism.

[Anonymous No.19619022]

>>19619016
>saved them from the enemy
based

[Anonymous No.19619027]

>>19619013
Well you said

>Fascists are about endless war, endless enemies and hyper authoritarian.

I might be just a conservative or a traditionalist, but i'm curious as to why you think fascism is inherently violent?

[Anonymous No.19619029]

>>19618916
>Can you please remind me what's so wrong about it?
It lost to Jewish golems. Golemancy is the ultimate political power

[Anonymous No.19619030]

>>19619010
Sternhell, The Birth of Fascist Ideology.

[Anonymous No.19619031]

>>19619016
They would've been raped and murdered by the bolsheviks just like the Romanovs, they gave them an honourable end as any responsible parent would do.

[Anonymous No.19619035]

>>19619021
>>19619030
Very interesting, thank you!

[Anonymous No.19619036]

>>19618928
>Fascists are about endless war
seems like it's liberal democracy that needs to constantly be at war. It's liberal democracy that's farther from the people's wishes than any form of authoritarianism

[Anonymous No.19619040]

>>19619027
Because violence is a tool to establish the values you want in a society, especially an authoritarian one. How else are you going to get rid of niggers?

[Anonymous No.19619043]

>>19619016
>fascism is bad because your enemies will be so brutal to your children that killing them is a mercy
This is unironically how good Goys think

[Anonymous No.19619058]

>>19619040
But what if i don't want to get rid of niggers but rather secure a future for my children far from society's degeneracy?

I'm not saying violence can't be needed or used, but being about "endless war" sounds like a stretch.

[Anonymous No.19619059]

>>19619010
Read books by facists to understand fascism.
A New Nobility of Blood and Soil, the premier book influencing National Socialism and Hitler's Mien Kampf, was recently translated and is available for like 23$.

[Anonymous No.19619063]

>>19619022
>>19619031
They left his military stepson alive to become one of the richest men in Germany but they would have killed the children?

[Anonymous No.19619078]

>>19619058
>But what if i don't want to get rid of niggers
Then why the fuck do you want to be a fascist? There's nothing fascist about what you want to do. You're just a plain old conservative. This is not fascism.

[Anonymous No.19619082]

We've already seen what happens when a fascist uses technological advancements to further his pet aims and hatreds. Event the fascist with the purest causes can be seduced by his own beliefs enough to think he is doing good when he orders chemical malware to incinerate a Tibetan monastery without a trace.

It is foolish to align yourself with fascism now that the industrial pandora's box has been opened.

[Anonymous No.19619101]

>>19618971
Not him, but a quick word of advice. The entirety of modern acdemia are bias against fascism due to "victory is written by winner" shenanigans. With this is mine you will have to read books that are bias against fascism and just keep that in mind. Be wary of semantics play, especially from late Marxist literature. You won't learn anything, since it's mostly sophistry and aims to build definitions and frameworks on vauge and irrelevant ideas to construe observations and fact to fit their ideology. This is why things such as queer marixism, CRT, and other nonsense. Because of this avoid any book list that has names like Adam Tooze in it, (you will sometimes see it shilled here, by the local marxist),

I would read Marx and also sift through this https://archived.moe/lit/thread/18756645/#18756645

[Anonymous No.19619106]

>>19619078
But thinking that all fascists want to get rid of niggers is still a stretch, there are non-white fascists too (Or far-right, whatever). Isn't one of the roots of fascism traditionalism?.

Honestly you sound like a leftist who has a very biased view on the far-right, i don't need to go out and cut nigger's throats to be considered a fascist. It goes beyond that, see >>19619021

[Anonymous No.19619119]

>>19618916
The obvious negative about a fascist authoritarian system is if you have a ruler that is morally/spiritually corrupt or has some other disability that will corrupt the state and cause suffering among the people. Some rulers of the past were outright evil also.
The other negative thing about organized states in general is the gradual loss of freedom of the individual as the state developes, gains more control and becomes more powerful and its technology is advancing. This is contrary to the natural way of human life if you consider that we have lived in small village communities and semi-nomadic tribes for 200.000 years or more.
Other than that fascism can be a good model for the modern age. Even when Plato was writting his Republic he always admired the Spartan "fascist" state. Whether you want to put a philosopher king on top of the hierarchy, or a Vedic chakravardin does not matter too much imo as it is just a model and not practical reality.
Democracy in large states always become oligarchies, and competition among oligarchs guarantees that only the most unscrupulous and morally corrupt oligarchs remain in power. In the worst case, like today, the richest oligarchs take control of the currency and the most valuable commodities, and then rule from behind the scenes with moral impunity.

[Anonymous No.19619122]

>>19619063
He was captured by western allies in italy and sent to a POW camp.

Goebbels was in Berlin with an approaching horde of Red Army rapist Soldiers

[Anonymous No.19619123]

>>19619101
Thank you for this, i am well aware, i've read Marx and Lenin extensively, but as i said i feel like something is being kept away from me when talking about fascism, like a very child-like version of a story and i do not buy it.

This list seems priceless and interesting!

[Anonymous No.19619124]

>>19619106
>But thinking that all fascists want to get rid of niggers is still a stretch, there are non-white fascists too
Yes, but they're each in their countries, not contaminating the West.
>Honestly you sound like a leftist who has a very biased view on the far-right, i don't need to go out and cut nigger's throats to be considered a fascist.
You are not a fascist. None of your goals are necessarily fascist. My grandma has your same values and she's just a traditional woman.

I'm not sure why you decided that you can be a niggerlover and a fascist. It's detrimental to fascism.

[Anonymous No.19619134]

>>19619078
I'm a fascist and I don't hate niggers, I see them as victims mostly. Like immigrants, they're being used as weapons and tools to destabilize European societies. Part of that trick is to turn us all against each other, brutalize us. Brutalizing fascists and making them mindlessly hateful is effective, because it turns them away from higher ideals, when the whole premise of fascism is devotion to higher ideals. The powers that be are very happy when fascists become stupid skinheads, when they feel like the only two options are "liberal pussy civic nationalist" or "skinhead." That's a false dichotomy.

The world is becoming much more elastic again as the liberal order breaks down, or rather its external covering comes off and it reveals that it was always rotten underneath. Political solutions in the future could involve peaceful separations, redrawing of boundaries, re-migrations. You don't have to be a psychopath to be an ethnonationalist.

[Anonymous No.19619139]

>>19619123
>i've read Marx and Lenin extensively
Have you read Sorel?

I highly recommend Gregor and Sternhell if you're already familiar with Marxism. Sorel is the legitimate conclusion of Marxism. So is Werner Sombart's German socialism. Sombart was a leading Marxist who converted to national socialism.

Mussolini was the greatest Italian socialist, an orthodox Marxist, and he also logically saw that Marxism evolves into fascism. There's no necessary discontinuity.