I never use the term “Nazi.” The false belief many adopt, for no true reason, is that Benito Mussolini was a mere opportunist, and Adolf Hitler’s “National Socialism” a trick. It does not seem the case. It is imagined, that somehow Hitler sat shuffling through a dictionary all-day deliberately looking for runic and magical symbols (like the swastika) and terms to subvert for propaganda! The ideology of Anton Drexler’s German Workers’ Party (Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) pre-existed Adolf Hitler’s political endeavors for almost two decades, and had developed solid foundations in three countries. In the 1904 Trautenau Program, the 1913 Iglau Program, the 1918 Vienna Program, and Rudolf Jung’s 1919 work Der Nationale Sozialismus lay the basis of National Socialism by its foundational theorists prior to Adolf Hitler. One fails to understand why these ideas do not die, and why some people, besides their Anti-Jewish sentiments and theories, find strength in them. It is not merely a pathological matter, but one of truth, surprisingly, for those tending to the simplistic moralist argument against Fascists. We need strong ideals in our era, and finding Liberalism weak and crippling, people again seek alternatives. It is not Adolf Hitler who established the völkische Bewegung! Remember this fact. Hence, whether Adolf Hitler existed, or not, the political folkdom and ethno-cultural attitudes would still manifest in the myriad of ways it has; and it has not, solely as anti-Jewish obsessions.
In the Fascist Ideal, as we should know, is deeply a metaphysical view. It is not simple to be an actual Fascist, as one in their ideals who promotes the unity of the people and its forward advancement, the astuteness of function, good health, in form and mind, on the individual and collective level. The philosophy of Fascism is not for the fickle-minded, and is clearly more than about the Jew.
There is a power, or force itself in the objective idealist’s notions of the universe and man’s longing for transcendence.
It is the same thing, central to the Occult Philosophy in Theosophy, except involving the sphere of organizing society and the State. Julius Evola explains in relation to this need for immanent relation of man with higher law, which is that eternal element in Fascism that appeals to particular persons:
“There was also the demand to integrate man through means of an ‘immanent relation to a higher law, endowed with an objective will transcending the individual and raising him to conscious membership of a spiritual society’. The formulation of this demand is significant, even if its content was never adequately defined. There are various possible judgments one can make regarding the concrete forms with which Fascism tried to meet this demand so as to consider itself the perfect representative of the doctrine of the state we have just discussed. Recognising the superficial and contrived character of the various initiatives and customs of Fascist Italy should not provide a pretext for neglecting a problem which is of fundamental importance no less now than then. It is basically a question of the problem of how to confront an impulse of ‘self-transcendence’ that can be repressed and silenced, but never completely eliminated, except in the extreme case of systematically degrading people into a bovine state. Yesterday’s ‘nationalist revolutions’ tried to furnish a political centre to crystallise this impulse (again, this is the action we have mentioned of ‘form’ on ‘matter’), to impede its running wild and its onset or breaking out into destructive forms. Indeed, no one can ignore the deep crisis of the ‘rationalising’ of existence attempted by bourgeois culture, given the many examples of the emerging of the irrational or ‘elemental’ (in the sense of the elemental character of a force of nature) through the fissures of this culture on every level. Today, with the return of this obsession with ‘rationalising’, there is a tendency to render service to an ideal that is not political but ‘social’ and which belongs to physical comfort, and to marginalise and discredit everything that is comprised of existential tension, heroism and the galvanising force of a myth. But it has been correctly pointed out that a profound crisis is inevitable at the point when prosperity and comfort will finally become boring. The early signs of this crisis are already apparent. They consist of all those forms of blind, anarchic and destructive revolts embraced by a youth that, precisely in the most prosperous nations, notice the absurdity and senselessness of an existence that is socialised, rationalised, materialistic, and dominated by the so-called ‘consumer culture’. In these revolts, this elementary impulse finds no object and, left to itself, becomes barbaric. In traditional societies, there has always existed a certain liturgy or mystique of power and sovereignty that was an integral part of the system, and which furnished a solution to the problem we have been addressing.”
These ideas are therefore bound to have a hold on certain minds.
“Who is a fascist intellectual? Fascism springs from a person’s social and intellectual attitudes and it is essential to go into its genesis. When idealists talk of fascism they usually refer to the murderous crusades carried out as a result of social, political or religious dogmas: they picture dismembered bodies and recall all kinds of physical killing and persecution. Idealist historians suggests that all fox sudden somebody, some class of people, or some society went berserk and started killing people. This is a simplistic definition of fascism, a comfortable rationalisation which ignores the reality of the human situation. Do people become murderers all of a sudden? No. The moment people believe something without undertaking the act-of-finding out they are manifesting a fascist tendency; to accept without questioning the premise involved in a statement, an analysis or a concept is to create the basis of fascism. Cold war slogans operate precisely in this manner. Beliefs devoid of experiential validity and made up of the accumulate prejudices of the society give rise to overt fascism.” (The Internationalists – Communist Party of Ireland Marxist-Leninists, Objective Idealism is Fascism: A Denunciation of Northrop Frye’s “Literary Criticism”)
This is a true statement. These Communists get it sometimes . . .
As these two of ten commandments of Fascist Italy went:
XII - Complete and willing obedience is the legionary's virtue.
X - The Duce [Mussolini] is always Right ("Il Duce ha sempre ragione")
Yet, you would never find me, as I explained in The Thermopylae of Fascism, adopting the tactic, that tries to discredit the name of the ideology. This is futile and petty. Once you do that, you will find yourself in circles, and someone will poke a hole in the lie. The foundational National Socialists (pre-Hitler) were a league of ex-Social Democrats and Trade Unionists. Benito Mussolini found inspiration in Sorel and the Syndicalists and sought balance with his economic ideal. The differences of thought in all these movements and Third Position fascinates me. Adolf Hitler truly believed in his ideas for the German workers and the National Socialists were avowed anti-Capitalists. This underestimation creates critical points of divergence and blindspots in those pretending to be as they say, “academically objective.” The generic, or standard left-liberal, or even now — radical left view of Fascism — is entirely polemically-inspired to make sure such ideas, and any related pattern of thinking never gain influence. I am not hampered by this; and by the way, following their thinking, what gives reformists like the Democratic Socialists validity of the term Socialism then? By studying more into the history of liberalism, I began to observe Giuseppe Mazzini’s liberal thought, and even the young Giovanni Gentile, and how and when this rationale exactly diverges into the development of Actualism, and Fascist theory of the State. I have researched and followed the historical tract of German folkdom and romantic nationalism.
It is a mistake to believe the propaganda was mere entertainment and manipulation.
The only person I have found capable of honestly dealing with this idea I argue, though critical of Fascism, but honestly recognizing its admirable ideas and qualities, is through Julius Evola’s, book, Fascism Viewed from the Right: Julius Evola.
If there are any more alike it, let us know in the comment section.
I understand why, at its essence, the force of these ideas and traditions gain influence, and fundamentally remain indestructible.