Form: Reply

—“What did you mean by articulating fascism in an adult manner? What would that require?”—

Fascism is very close to (and mussolini said so) a religion. And IMO the final step in eradicating evil religions. And the germans french and italians came close to eradicating it. But without fascism(kin worship) to replace christianity, the bottom fell into the trap of marxism and universalism thereby simply revising christianity(judaism v2) into pseudoscience.

There is no false promise to nation-worship. It’s the optimum strategy for any and every non-parasitic polity.

The problem is that it’s not articulated operationally (performatively) or in law (programmatically), and as such it’s not possible to resolve conflicts over not only its meaning but what it would mean for people day to day, month to month, year to year – and why they wouldn’t be put on the same path to failure that hitler and mussolini put us on. I mean, everyone tried to universalize. The bolsheviks probably are the ones at fault. and the jews at fault in broader europe. But the fact that ‘continentals’ still take from the church, rousseau, kant, hegel et all with their secular moralistic romantic prose means they are still failing just as the new right in europe has failed.

The end result has to be inspiring. But it has to be inspiring because it is POSSIBLE to run a complex defense, polity, economy and kin group with some set of limits beyond which a leader is only masking failure to be able to do so. I mean, in the end you run out of revolutionary energy by which to bring people together. You have to eventually ‘govern’. No fascist has succeeded in ‘governing’ other than China. And china does it because of a vast specialized bureaucracy in doing it. And even they needed to hand over most of production to the middle class to prevent universal corruption that happens under arbitrary rule.

So how do we produce a system of government encoded in rules (law) for a fascist government? Well. My work is pretty fucking fascist. And I think ethnocentrism is a message that will increasingly sell. And it doesn’t require an emergent leader. And I prefer monarchy over dictator for hoppeian reasons. So the problem remains how to create a ‘religion’ of fascism (inspiration), among american (or anglo in general) people for whom continental submission is not only unnatural but antithetical? The only answer is to embody that ‘discretion’ in a monarchy whose only reason for existence is what we call fascist: the nation as an army. Napoleon invented total war, and the nation state. But the fascists invented the total state as a continuous war of genetics, culture, economics, politics, and violence against other cultures in defense of the nation (people).

I *DO* understand most people need to learn by doing, learn by experience, learn by instruction, and function by following rules – but one must have something to instruct them in that is relatively free of ‘appropriation’ and ‘floating’. Ergo, one needs to own the means of introducing each of those demands for learning: religion (experience), doing (ritual), instruction (School), and what to instruct them in a literature, and the means of operating that system (rules), and means of limiting ‘float’ in that system (law).

I don’t quite know how to ‘sell’ fascism but I know how to sell monarchy, discretionary rule in the production of commons, and ethnocentrism and soft eugenics, so that we continue our history.