Calls everyone he doesn't like a Fascist

>calls everyone he doesn't like a Fascist
>hasn't read For My Legionaries, The Doctrine of Fascism, Mein Kampf, Evola or Spengler

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=fT69FG2irAo
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

who are you talking to

>calls himself a fascist
>hasn't read any of them either

Mein Kampf is largely irrelevant if you want to really get a handle on Fascism.

Also
>no Gabriele D'Annunzio

Come on, son. He practically conceived the thing aesthetically.

>Spenger and Evola
>Fascist

For my legionaries will forever be one of my favorite books.

>Evola or Spengler

If you are not lumping them in to make an ironic sort of point, I am convinced you have not read the actual corpus of the latter two.

I read The Doctrine of Fascism and I'm half way through For My Legionaries, and I'm really enjoying it. Are Mein Kampf and Evola just as good?

Also, I never heard of Spengler, who is he?

Evola is good, but he's a radical Traditionalist. He called himself a supra-fascist and got away from being arrested in the 50's by arguing against fascism from a EVEN FARTHER RIGHT WING PERSPECTIVE. So yea he's pretty good. The big three books (Revolt Against the Modern World, Men Among the Ruins, and Ride the Tiger) are all free online.

I've been hesitant to read it, what is the appeal of it from a literary perspective?

Take it from someone who is very sympathetic to the reactionary position, Mein Kampf is not a good read.

Why is it bad?

>Evola is good, but he's a radical Traditionalist.
Is he though? Isn't he into weird sex stuff and occultism?

Yeah, that's what I keep hearing. I hear it's boring.

The tantra stuff? That's just the stuff he got from Eastern Religions. If you ever read Rene Guenon or other Perennial Philosophers the reason why all the stuff is written about makes sense. Aldous Huxley was a Perennial Philosopher surprisingly, his book on the subject is very good.

Honestly while Evola's other books are interesting reads, the big 3 books plus Path of Cinnabar is good enough for most people who read him.

>Aldous Huxley was a Perennial Philosopher surprisingly, his book on the subject is very good.
Oh, I heard about that and I was thinking about looking into it, but I wasn't sure if perennialism was just a meme or not.

>Honestly while Evola's other books are interesting reads, the big 3 books plus Path of Cinnabar is good enough for most people who read him.
Yeah I plan on reading the main three. I'll probably pass on the sex stuff though.

I'm not that poster, but Moldbug has recommended Hitler's Table Talk many times, read that instead.

Mein Kampf is great, brainlets just can't understand it.

>the stuff he got from Eastern Religions
>traditionalist
heh.. so this is the depth of right wing literature.. praise Kek, brothers!

Is Evola really a fascist? I mean he's closely associated with fascism and his philosophy is close to fascism in many ways but in many ways he's perhaps too fascistic to be considered a fascist.

Sex, magic and sex magic are very traditionalist things, user.

He said as much, and if I remember correctly he was more fond of the NSDAP than Italian fascism. He expected the parties to ideologically purify themselves after the war which would bring them more into line with his ideas.
I think people go in expecting it to be some philosophical or political treatise, or just some tirade against THE JEWS when it's literally just a memoir.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but he does go into the whole "da jooz" argument in the second half of the book, doesn't he?

Nah he does, but it's not Culture of Critique tier where he says "here's how and why the Jews are terrible". He just details what led him to where he was politically, which included personal interactions with Jews. That's where you get stuff like the famous "gradually I began to hate them" quote.

Mein Kampf is a good read only if you have an edition with good footnotes, otherwise you'll miss a piece of the pie.

>denies the holocaust

Keep your shit books

>Fascism is anti-Semitic

im laffin

Please lads, keep the shitposting light. This thread has potential.

>implies Spengler is a fascist
rolling in his grave

Fascism is not about denying the holocaust, that's National-Socialism. If anything, Mussolini, the original Fascist, didn't give an ounce of a shit about Jews and had some of them in the highest positions in his government.

Not supporting Fascism here, but just something you should know.

In the sixteen years of Benito Mussolini's dictatorship prior to this, there had not been any race laws; Mussolini had held the view that a small contingent of Italian Jews had lived in Italy "since the days of the Kings of Rome" (a reference to the Bené Roma) and should "remain undisturbed".[1] There were even some Jews in the National Fascist Party, such as Ettore Ovazza who in 1935 founded the Jewish Fascist paper La Nostra Bandiera.[2] The German influence on Italian policy upset the established balance in Fascist Italy and proved highly unpopular to most Italians; however, under a secret pact between the Vatican and Mussolini's regime, the Catholic church agreed not to criticise the anti-semitic measures.[

National-socialism is a kind of fascism, even if it differs from the Italian expression in certain ways.
Also it would be hard for a contemporary natsoc to "deny" the Holocaust since most of them didn't know about it at the time.

Oh it's an anime poster

Excellent post.

You just claimed that a subgroup defines its group?

...

brainlet

Whoops.
No, I claimed that National Socialism is a kind of fascism. It's the German kind. Personally I think that 'muh antisemitism' is hands-down the least interesting direction that a thread about fascist literature could go down. It's been discussed to death on /pol/ and Veeky Forums, let's talk about what they thought instead of chasing each others tails over the Holocaust.

Seconding Hitler's Table Talks and Rosenberg's Myth of the Twentieth Century. If you really want to understand Hitler, read his table talks.

Please keep your fucking pawns of Spengler, you fucking reactionary shitheads.
You fucks never read the actual book, only the title appeals to your "iz happening" double digit IQs.

No, it's not a meme. Huxley's book is one of the better compilations of various mystical experiences that are all similar in nature that span different cultures and time periods, and in no way (at least conceivably) influenced each other, and yet they describe the same experience of what you'd call the divine.

What are you even saying? You clearly have no clue of Evola's concept of Traditionalism, which would be any religion/philosophy/school of thought that was originally divinely inspired at its origin and passed on through initiation.

Evola was most fond of the SS. He saw the greatest potential in their order becoming a genuine aristocrat-of-the-soul tradition.

Spengler was reactionary as fuck even if he wasn't a fascist. Literally his problem with Hitler was that he came too soon for the model.

Is this a new meme for neo-fascists to say that Spengler supported fascism? Where does the basis for that come from? It's been a while since I've read him but I don't recall him endorsing any ideology in saying that civilization is cyclical. As far as I know, he was apolitical and disagreed with what the nazis we're pushing.

He was a big critic of Weimar Germany, and was a tepid supporter of the NDSAP in the beginning. No, he wasn't a fascist, but that doesn't mean his thought isn't useful to fascists.

But doesn't Spengler's outlook on history go against the spirit of fascism? The fascists were all about certain races being exceptional and that national rejuvenation was within reach. I got the impression from DotW that Spengler didn't buy into that kind of stuff. My main take away was that our civilization isn't special and is going to eventually end.

Spengler probably bought into it as much as anyone from the period did, but what fascists took away from his work was mostly about the transition from democracy to autocracy. They thought that there was a way to overcome the continuation of the cycle if they just went full Caesarism as soon as possible.

Truly a sperg-tastic post, user. Definnitely not a meme

>Spengler probably bought into it as much as anyone from the period did
Wew, that was unclear. I mean that Spengler was probably as nationalistic as anyone, not that he was a fascist or that he thought his own predictions were wrong.

>Writes a greentext, that someone 'calls everyone he doesn't like a Fascist'
>Goes and does the same thing as Red propaganda and somehow classifies 'Mein Kampf' into Fascism
Fascism is and can only be Italian thing. And everyone trying to follow it outside Italy, have somehow managed to turn it into fanatic system similar to that of Bolshevik regime.

To have a idea of Fascism and especially Mussolini, one should read Rendo De Felice's massive biography.

>>When taken to court Evola rejected the accusation of being a fascist on the grounds that he was in fact a "Super-fascist".

Hey, I have the audiobook from one of those at least.

Evola was a retard nerd that believed in magic and outright supported rape. Maximum degenerate.

Mussolini considered Stalin to be a kind of fascist, though.

He didn't consider such. He rightly saw that Dzugasvili was following in Uljanov's footsteps. His sole innovation being the 'liquidation' of party members - in other words: fanatic followers of Uljanov.

Uljanov was his idol, but he didn't follow him in mass terror or genocidal action (during Lenin of Don Cossacks and 'bourgoise') and said that the 'policy of the Old man has obviously failed'. He also said that 'Ceka (meaning Cheka) is in Russia, not Italy', which of course was pretty much correct (there was mass surveilance of letters and telephone, but never mass arrests or terror and those harsh sentences of anti-Fascists to outer Italian islands were routinely excused soon after sentencing).

And he sure as hell didn't consider Hitler a 'Fascist' until there was no longer hope for the Anglo-Italian alliance. From the first meeting (during which he called him 'mad, he's mad!') he said to him and his associates that the anti-Jewish sentiment will destroy the German movement (but it didn't, it was the expansion of 'living space' to the West too.

He - the editor of Socialist Party daily 'Avant' - was a purebred Socialist until the Italian Socialist Party condemned and excused him for his pro-intervention policy. Mussolini didn't only talk the talk, but walked walk by volunteering to the front. So of course he saw some link to Bolshevik too, and he of course considered Fascism to be Socialism, just without the Internationalism and Marxists class struggle.

Mussolini cannot be directly compared to Uljanov, Dzugasvili or Hitler, simply because he was not a fanatic: not a fanatic of class struggle spreading class hatred, not a fanatic of 'racial purity' and of fanatical anti-Jewishness.

No, that's very reductive. Read Ernst Nolte.

>even some Jews in the National Fascist Party
Minimize it, that's the Wikipedia for you.
Again, Renzo De Felice's Mussolini biography and the 'Jews in Fascist Italy' (Felice was a Italian Jew himself): Jews were overrepresented in the National Fascist Party, so there was little bit more of them than 'some'.

Mussolini's Vatican Jewish lover Sarfatti wrote the propaganda biography of him.

Italian forces in France, in everywhere formed refugee zones for the Jews; Italians didn't deport a single Jew to the Germans before the puppet state of Salo.

I think genocide is big enough of a thing to seperate two idelogies and their followers. So no, I would not call National Socialism Fascism under any circumstances. Or Fascism Soviet (or Chinese or ..) Communism (Bolshevism).

The Racial manifesto was simply a trick to fool Hitler: 'We're with you!'. It's no accident that it happened right after the three party talks of Italy, Britain and France went to shit after someone leaked the information about them.

>People don't know what fascism is meant to be
You don't say? Most people just see it as a synonym for right wing authoritarianism and nothing more.

Man and technik is written after Prussian Socialism, just saying. If you are going to pose Spengler as anything other than a conservative revolutionary, then go ahead. Just know that socialism was the cool thing to call yourself back then.

Can y'all fellas hook me up with a digital copy ?

>reading Evola
why

D'Annunzio is really interesting, apparently he is still a big thing in Italy. His Operas and so on. Never looked into them myself

Spengler and the conservative revolution are linked though. Obviously Evola is kind of on a weird plane by himself

Fascism in each country adopted unique characteristics based on its host country, so in Romanian and German culture (where antisemitism is incredibly deeply ingrained) it was inevitable. In Italy there just wasn't a popular view against Jews, or the idea that "Jewish behavior" (read finance) was morally wrong. Partly because of the merchant and banking history of the Italian houses.

Where fascism was successful it adapted to the unique characteristics of the culture it was in. You see this in the UK with Oswold Mosely, his early period when he had more success he was very practical, focused on economic issues and class and avoided grandiose racial rhetoric. As they started to follow the Nazi line more closely support fell off a cliff. For any ultranationalist movement (obviously fascism is more than that, but it is ultranationalist), you have to actually follow the norms of the society you are in. It cannot be imported

i call anyone, that advocates for the coercion of society into a hegemony based around any kind of social boundaries within a population, a fascist.
give a fuck what the literal definition of "fascism" is. We are talking about the real actions of people. Not ideological doctrines written from an armchair.

>calls everyone he doesn't like a commie
>Hasn't read Communist Manifesto or Capital

That's a fucking retarded definition and you should stop posting.

explain why, i myself was unsatisfactory with the definition because it doesn't meet the semiotic requirements for effective communication. but i am too lazy to think about it. so go ahead and explain why you are being such an asshole.

actually Mussolini wanted the idea to spread. He supported Mosley's BUF in Britain

Fascist is used much more loosely than commie though. And most of the people being called commies are commies. Some people will still call Mitt Romney a Fascist after he effectively endorsed antifa

yeah but antifa are the real fascists

Because what you're saying, in so many words, is that anyone who seeks to enact their personal vision of society on that society is a fascist. It isn't an effective definition because it characterizes a solid, I'd say seventy percent, of the political compass as fascistic, and because fascism already has a fairly solid definition: It's a hyper-nationalistic authoritarian ideology that believes in militarism and class cooperation. Belief in coercion or a hierarchical social structure or class divisions isn't enough to constitute fascism, it's just enough to make you not an ancom.

>it doesn't meet the semiotic requirements for effective communication

Lol, that's one way to say it. Stop trying to talk like some sort of "academic" and just use your natural voice.

>fascist is used much more loosely than commie.
Lol, the opposite seems to be true. People were calling Bernie sanders fans communist. Communism is a word that has been stripped of all meaning by both western and soviet propaganda calling something that wasn't even close to communism, "communism". The liberal political economy and business press in an attempt to defame all socialism, and in the case of the reds to in the eyes of their nation, legitimize their authoritarian nightmare states with the convenient PR appeal communism has on paper.
The word "commie" has almost no meaning left in it, besides being at least remotely anti-capitalist . At least there is some semblance of a common thread in "fascist", heavy reliance on the legal authority of the state to justify and enforce the social hegemony of the dominant group.

except Bernie directs praise towards the Soviet Union and Cuba. Which Republican speaks well of Mussolini, Mosley, Codreanu, or any other Fascist?

Fascists
>traditional values
>Class Collaboration
>Nationalism
>Militarism
>advocates ethnostates and homogenous cultures
Antifa
>progressive
>Class warfare
>self-hatred, victim complex
>anti-military
>muh diversity
Totally the same

>except Bernie directs praise towards the Soviet Union and Cuba
No he doesn't.
he isn't even remotely communist in his actions

youtube.com/watch?v=fT69FG2irAo

>heavy reliance on the legal authority of the state to justify and enforce the social hegemony of the dominant group
Not really. As used by the left and the moderate right it's mostly just a performative used to condemn the target.

>I'm an unapologetic brainlet
ok then

That's how I talk IRL and I'm schism'd with acedemia. There is a reason why i don't have many people to talk to.
Well this is what I meant by it doesn't meat the semiotic requirements. The information I am trying to convey does not logically follow from the information I stated.
>anyone who seeks to enact their personal vision of society on that society is a fascist
This is not what I meant.
What I meant is someone is a fascist, if their "personal vision" is to have a society where the dominant demographic(most particularly ethnicity) has hegemonic authority over the others, and they seek to use the legal authority of the state to arbitrarily establish and enforce this vision.
All this implicates the nationalism that is characteristic of fascism.
>the well established definition of fascism
I prefer to speak in general terms.

>What I meant is someone is a fascist, if their "personal vision" is to have a society where the dominant demographic(most particularly ethnicity) has hegemonic authority over the others, and they seek to use the legal authority of the state to arbitrarily establish and enforce this vision.
So essentially any state that isn't liberal democratic is fascist then?

>I prefer to speak in general terms.
You're not speaking in general terms though, you're making up your own personal definition of a word when the word already has a well-established popular (read: general) definition. you're doing the exact opposite of speaking in general terms.

That's clearer, and certainly casts a narrower net, but it still doesn't accurately describe fascism. It could as easily describe paleocons as it could monarchists, since reaffirming the dominant group's hegemony through law and force describes a lot of ideologies (including basically every state before 1700 or so).

It's fine to speak in general terms but 'fascist' has a well-defined meaning when it's not being used as a pejorative. However, I think there's a certain blending of fascism into other political ideologies such that you can, on the right scale, smoothly transition from fascism to other schools of thought. So certain ideologies might be more or less "fascist" depending on how closely they adhere to the common strands in strictly fascist movements.

nigga thats bait

>any state that isn't liberal democratic is fascist then?
No, an authoritarian state that legalizes through the means of liberal democracy a social-demographic(particularly ethinic) hegemony is fascist state.
This definition does not apply to; vanguard states, monarchies(popular action of the dominant group is essential to facism), corporate-states(economic class is not applicable), representative or direct democracies that lack ethnic hegemony, or just about anything else I can think of.
You are welcome to find a counter-argument, if not it's a tautology.
>a well-established popular (read: general)
Confirmed for not knowing what General(read:big G) means.
What I mean by general is I am dealing with the implicit qualities of fascism and not the particular intricacies of various cases.
A quick, silly, hypothetical example, is a fascist system where hegemonic domination is not held over any particular race or ethnicity. But the people with last names starting with the first 13 letters of the alphabet dominate the people with last names starting with later 13 letters of the alphabet.
Everything about this system works the same exact way as any other fascist system, it is only the particular objects that have changed.
This is the thing about General properties you need to get. The General supervenes on the particular.

That offers nothing about the structure of society except that those 13 letters constitute the ruling class. You're not describing any general principle.

It could as easily describe paleocons as it could monarchists, since reaffirming the dominant group's hegemony through law and force describes a lot of ideologies (including basically every state before 1700 or so).
Right. With this in mind I note another implicit quality of fascism in general. The establishment of the before mentioned system by popular, more or less democratic means.

Do you really not get that instead of laying out the properties of fascism, I asked you to imagine an already existing form of fascism, an historical example per say, and replace the demographics with people with last names starting with certain letters of the alphabet?
This was to show how my general definition holds true for fascism, where the literal definition dealing with the particulars of race and ethnicity does not.

But it doesn't actually mean anything. It's like saying, "Imagine communism but with X instead of class," or "Imagine liberalism but with X instead of individualism."

Except communism innately has no class at all.
So it would be "imagine communism without no class" a double negation, completely different proposition.
More importantly, communism, without no class would function in a way that is fundamentally different from communism, and would not be communism at all. The same goes for liberalism without individualism.
Whereas fascism with alphabetical categories instead of ethnicities, still fundamentally functions the same. I.e. Logical equivalence.
Furthermore, my general definition of fascism is a tautology. Not only is it logically equivalent to the literal definition of fascism. There is no particular argument for the definition of facism that it does not satisfy.
If you don't believe my translate it into PL and check the truth tables.

>Whereas fascism with alphabetical categories instead of ethnicities, still fundamentally functions the same. I.e. Logical equivalence.
But it doesn't. Your definition describes fascism as well as it describes a larger subset of ideologies, and it describes them all incredibly poorly, with no understanding of the thought processes behind each, the societies they seek to create or the societies that they create in practice. It describes, functionally, absolutely nothing.

Only when I brought up monarchism did you tack on "but democracy" to the end, which is blatantly false seeing as, to my knowledge, only one fascist regime came about through election, and far more fascist groups out of power disdain(ed) democracy than supported it. You're saying nothing and pretending to be profound, because you're a sophist. I see why you were kicked out of academia.

>thought processes behind each, the societies they seek to create or the societies that they create in practice
i abstracted all of this away because doctrine and action have little causal effect on the underlying structure and function of the entities and process they manifest from.
actually i thought of, and alluded to this before you did>to my knowledge, only one fascist regime came about through election, and far more fascist groups out of power disdain(ed) democracy than supported it.
the "popular action" was a very important part of that statement, as was the "more or less". i was trying to say it was by popular support of a significant section of the population in question that fosters the rise of fascism. Contrasting fascism to the autocratic decrees of dictators and monarchs. I wasn't saying that it necessarily follows the ideal conditions of liberal democracy. Another thing that "popular action" and "legal authority" contrast this generalization of fascism with is tribalistic infighting. As popular action implicates an institutional organization, and legal authority implies it.
>ou're saying nothing and pretending to be profound, because you're a sophist. I see why you were kicked out of academia.
these comments serve no purpose and are not relevant to the topic at hand. If you are going to start flinging shit you best aim well.
>you're a sophist
in what way? I am a pragmatist.