Good evening lit,
Seeing as the board seems to have been occupied by a number of fascist posters, I'll seize the opportunity to pose a question as a non-fascist.
One of the interesting/fascinating parts about old-time fascism to me was the solidarity between the fascist ideology and the futurist aesthetic. My question is, how is this link fairing in contemporary fascism? Is it intact, and how does it look? Is transhumanist fascism a thing?
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Fug. Really makes them think.
Obviously there's the Moldbug/Land transhumanist technocalypse aesthetic. Basically cyber-punk projected 400 years forward. Everyone else is very vague other than 'no more darkies'. Probably not averse to the world looking like Bioshock's Columbia. There you get the recreation of an imagined halcyon past with all the regimentation and lack of civil liberties outside narrowly constrained parameters any mindless dickhead could ever hope.
There are elements within "transhumanism" that might be seen to support "fascism", especially when the terms are used on a board that doesn't have a dialectical approach to setting terms.
Personally, from steeping myself in the memes of so called "fascism" I don't think what was "fascism" is able to exist anywhere without taking on new distinctions, that cut ties with the labels. This essentially requires new aesthetics, and a new paradigm.
Defining this "futurism" is going to undergo the same process, which will make it highly susceptible to influence. I don't know much of the history of futurism, but transhumanism is less speculative, or at least highly rational in the predictions - which to me, makes it akin to modernism.
I don't know if that helps. Anyone know of books on futurism and its influence on Nazis. I've heard there's a book on surrealism related to Italian fascism.
Some books on Dadaism might be handy too....
contemporary "fascists" are fucking retarded and overly concerned with vidya
They are all about muh classical art
The link didn't even really survive ww2. Italy had mostly turned to Neo-Classical art styles, things that recalled the glory of Rome. Also, lots of the original fascists didn't survive ww2. Today's "fascists" don't bear much resemblance to Marinetti and his entourage. They are focussed on traditional values, ethnic isolationism, reigning in capitalism and technology.
Accelerationist thinkers like Nick Land (on the right) and Nick Srnicek and Alex Williams (on the left) are probably the real inheritors of the Futurist legacy, though none of what they promote resembles Fascism, but rather Libertarianism/Neoreaction and "Fully Automated Luxury Communism".
Transhumanism is has a similar left right divide on a Libertarian/Socialist divide.
>Also, lots of the original fascists didn't survive ww2.
Sorry, I meant "the original futurists", though not many fascists survived, either, lol.
>My question is, how is this link fairing in contemporary fascism?
Vaporwave aesthetics kinda hits the spot. Also anime nazis on twitter. The fact that the thing actually exists is a miracle(it's actually predictable).
This is the kind of quality post I hope to find on pol when I've gone, but I've never come across someone who writes coherently there. I'm glad that lit lets these posts slip by once and a while.
Sam Hyde is the American D'Annunzio. Charls is Marinetti. getting their show on a major cable network was their Fiume, their flight over Vienna.
Futurism is a valid, Veeky Forums topic. Marinetti was a poet.
youtube.com
Some context then.
Imagine just saying this shit out loud sincerely now. Do people on the left actually think this is possible? Don't you think you might be over indulging in dystopian rhetoric a bit too much, maybe even to the point that you're alienating people.
>Imagine just saying this shit out loud sincerely now. Do people on the left actually think this is possible? Don't you think you might be over indulging in dystopian rhetoric a bit too much, maybe even to the point that you're alienating people.
Who are you talking about, the Marinetti video?
Because he certainly wasn't a leftist. And yes, he was trying to be as bombastic as possible.
This is awesome. I just assumed there weren't any recordings of this, is there a full video/audio version of the manifesto?
Contemporary fascism seems to be mostly informed by the German variety, which I'm sure has something to do with how the Nazis are depicted in our media. I don't know whether it's the uniforms, the military prowess and the scientific achievements informing all the what-if scenarios, the unity of a whole nation, etc., but there's something about the Nazis that fascinates us. By comparison the Italian fascists performed poorly before and during WW2 even if the Italian campaign turned out to be a tough old gut. Which is a shame because like you I also think Italian fascism is more interesting because of its Futurist roots even if that connection is not made these days to contemporary ideas of fascism.
I'm not really a fan of Futurist art but some of the ideas are interesting. Something about masculine speed and vectors escaping the feminine, chaotic cycles of nature; a complete dominance over form through unification with the mechanical as a vehicle for a multiplied externalisation of human will. Crazy shit, but kind of awesome. It doesn't seem like there is anything similar shaping Nazism. Adopting the Enlightenment idea of nationhood and women's role in that is not an escape from cycles or any sort of dominance but just a form of maintaining the integrity of something. It seems stagnant in comparison, even if it's more practical or believable.
I wish Italian fascism was more accepted by the right because it seems more pertinent to the scientific developments of our time, but it doesn't really gel well with the prevalent traditionalism and conservatism. That's not to say that transhumanism plays no part in leftist thought. But people just want to be proud of something, it seems, which is hard to do when you're not producing anything and the things you consume are disenfranchising and not at all what you are used to (on the surface). But imagine if the current cultural debate was between neo-Futurism and neo-Surrealism. You'd need a greater awareness of philosophy and art, which most are not prepared to do.
You had me until the last part about leftist thought, whatever that's suppose to denote. And I notice you seem to make the mistake of ascribing thought to political identity. I'd bet you'd find the cleavages of thought about specific subjects about health, gene manipulation, ect exists regardless of political identity. The thought of people is completely different than how they view issues that are framed for them beforehand. Ignorance is rampant.
There is a AI theorist, professor, scientist in China that has some interesting speculations on the divide between those who hold humanity as sacred and those who will push away from their humanity. It seems rather inevitable to me, but so doesn't the backlash from traditionalists. Which is why I think aesthetics will lead to nothing but old conversations. Not neo-Futurism, but retro-Futurism with absurdity in the fine print. It'd be nice to have an enemy though, seeing as how boring pessimistic nihilism is day to day. Plus it'd be easy to monetise.
German national socialism had its links to Wagner and the occultist and decadent scenes of interwar and Wilhelmine germany.
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
>I'd bet you'd find the cleavages of thought about specific subjects about health, gene manipulation, ect exists regardless of political identity. The thought of people is completely different than how they view issues that are framed for them beforehand. Ignorance is rampant.
totally this. Most of the pertinent issues of technology aren't even commonly framed in a left/right divide and people go with gut feelings, uniformed by direct party positions.
There are good reasons to be fearful about technology, and the only people that seem to be paying attention are on the fringe (left and right), either Accelerationists, Transhumanists, Enviornmentalists, Neo-Luddites, and even some particularly crazy Anti-Abortionists. But mainstream politics tends to not have opinions on things like artificial intelligence, gene editing, robotics, etc.
In some ways, that's actually nice. Because people can't just parrot back lines from their favorite politician. But you also get the impression that the politicians themselves aren't paying attention to these issues. Things like CRISPR and various silicon valley AI companies should probably be matters of democratic discussion, but they aren't.
Yeah the other person who responded to you sums up what I meant. It was a bad line and I think the last I added because I felt I should at least hint at the idea that transhumanism doesn't just translate to Futurism
Right, I forgot about its links to the occult and such, thanks. Another useful way to differentiate between Italian and German fascism.