Why do fascists focus so much on aesthetics and so little on having a thriving, peaceful, free society ?

>capitalist
liberal*

In many ways fascism respects your freedom more than socialism.

>"freedom"

what did he mean by this?

Except that fascism (corporatism) is an antidemocratic totalitarian ideology where a ruler governs the classes.

>write a long post about the fact that aesthetic as the existential foundation is not inherent to neoreactionary writers, and that it is more linked to the Greeks and post-Nietzscheian writers (who were anarchists more often than not)
>computer crashes

Fuck it

I don't understand what you think the society you live in right now is.
Is it not a plutocracy which violently oppresses other nations and forcibly strips away your own earnings to support people you have no relation with?

But think about how shit our society would be if we lived in an actual democracy. Mob rule is dangerous.

Because aesthetics are a much more immediate mechanism to power.

Ezra Pound just didn't like Jews, that's all.

If they're taking Pound out for disliking jews they might as well take everybody out.

Have you actually heard his Italy broadcasts?

>But think about how shit our society would be if we lived in an actual democracy.
Nah it will be better than every institutions serving the elites

Link, please, even if unsubbed.

The issue isn't that they don't think their ideology will make people freer, more prosperous, etc. It's that their definition of what makes a man free is different. Is a man more free when he's got rules to follow, or is he freer in anarchy? What do you define as thriving? A thriving of thinking, of material gain, of science, of "progress"?

We can throw around propaganda terms like "freedom" all we like, but if we don't say what exactly we mean by those terms, we're not actually having a discussion.

Good definition.

National Socialism is basically to apply the natural differences in sexes and races, and honor those differences, and bring about their ultimate archetypal qualities through constant self-improvement of the collective and the individual. Liberalism is what? An imaginary dream where "freedom of choice" is the rule, meaning complete abstraction, lots of confusion, and no basis in biological reality - it's a fight against nature (instead of strengthening and honoring what nature has already given us) for some universal principles that are man-made.

On the first two, thriving and peaceful, many fascists believe that a focus on aesthetics, or Art, will deliver a thriving and peaceful society. Think about how literature, history, theater, poetry, dress, songs, dance, etc, now TV and movies, serve as a reservoir of familiarity and a common reference point for members of a community, regardless of its size. On freedom, the relationship is more controversial: people do have some individual liberty under fascism, but only to the point that such liberty does not disrupt the aesthetics, and other factors, that serve as the basis for the thriving and peaceful community. Of course this is illiberal, but it's not terribly different from past societies that outlawed blasphemy, lese majeste, anti-revolutionary acts, and other words and deeds which subverted the public order, just more pronounced, in part due to the ability of modern societies to monitor their citizens to a much greater extent than in the past (in this respect fascism is hyper-modern).

This is all theoretical, though, in practice the empirical results of fascism suggest that building a society in which aesthetics are its primary organizing principle isn't viable and will devolve into tyranny, particularly when adherence to those aesthetics is enforced by violent thuggery.

>He evidently hasn't read The Grand Inquisitor.

This is much too vague. What does 'freedom' mean to you? Do you honestly believe Americans or Europeans are a free people today?

english.illinois.edu/maps/poets/m_r/pound/radio.htm
thoughts?

Because beauty is the only counter-agent to nihilism. Fuck your "freedom."

Not that person, but vague concepts like freedom arise because there is utility in containing a multiplicity of vague thematic meaning under one banner. In what specific context are you looking for an explanation of freedom?

Americans and Europeans surely are not free people today. But when authority forces you to make war (= to die) and blackmails you with death penalty if you don't want to pick up the rifle... well, that's the worst thing that could ever happen to a human. Fascism considers war a precondition for its own existence and permanence... Just imagine.

Because in un-free society you'd get 20 lashes for even asking that question

Good point haha

That's just pseud larpers on Veeky Forums, the actual 'aesthetics' of fascism, insofar as they could be said to exist consisted for the most part of garish homoerotic kitsch

because having a thriving, peaceful and free society means very little if your society is completely bereft of meaning.

>muh left/right dichotomy
Jesus Christ fucking end yourself

In leftism, the strong are forced to bow down before the weak. In fascism, the strong are allowed free reign to realise their potential. Leftism is but the tyranny of the Weak

Now, if you two could just talk and work your shit out...

Freedom is relational.

Too little freedom is bad, too much freedom is bad also.

Different people need different amounts of freedom.

Equality is a meme in this regard.

Can this be mediated with an "equality of access/opportunity" or similar convention?

I'm not a Stirnerfag but honestly, freedom is a "spook". Man, in his essence, is and Man exists, he doesn't question his ability to act, he just acts. You become alienated once you create a dichotomy between free will and determinism.

Nowadays, one's ability to be free depends entirely on one's ability to satisfy his desires. For most people, a free man is a rich man, an unsatisfied hedonist. This false conception of freedom has been entirely structured by liberalism.

You can't do whatever the fuck you want, you just chose according to a context which is the résultats of previous historical circumstances.

I loved reading that, thanks a lot for sharing

freedom to do what if you are ultimately free you have no direction

That depends upon who decides how much freedom is good for what person.

If it is the person itself, he or she might abuse the opportunity.

If the dispensation of freedom is delegated, the person in charge could become a tyrant.

It really boils down to setting up a system of checks and balances and maintaining the status quo

>freedom boils down to being kept in check by others and maintaining the status quo
I agree, but I'm sure you can appreciate the surface irony in this sentiment.

Germans ruin everything

>not saving after every paragraph
It's your own fault m8.

because with freedom you can have everything else, but not always despite of having it all you can say you have freedom.

Freedom is the first political value. Any idealism is condemned to failure

>Libertarianism
>has freedom as its core principle
>still an -ism
>still doomed to failure

And you expect the state to give you direction?

All of appreciable existence should inform your worldview.

I'm so free getting stabbed by niggers and kababs.

So free

FPBP

have you ever actually really been stabbed?

of course he hasn't
You're free to defend yourself. Stop being a beta cuck that expects society to protect you. At the end of the day our world is made up of individuals acting independently, carry your own weight.

Interwar Europe certainly was not peaceful read some Ernst Nolte.
Sorel was influential and he and as extension the fascist movement saw violence as way to start a rebirth of the "weak" nation states.

i expect the state to throw commies out of helicopters nothing more