*
Following my negative definition of fascism as a secular (not religious), anti-egalitarian (reacting against Leftism, to at least that extent) and non-monarchial form of government...
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/what-is-fascism.html
(Insofar as fascism is monarchial, religious and/ or egalitarian - it is to that extent not fascism. of course, pure forms or types of political system are seldom/ never seen in reality - or at least not for long...)
, and considering the discussion in the comments,
there arises the matter of whether fascism was nationalist?
*
The answer, I think, is that successful fascism was nationalist.
Because fascism is a secular form of government, unless there is a strong nationalist sentiment, fascism cannot achieve the cohesion necessary to defeat Leftism.
And this is why fascism was a temporary phase during the early/ mid twentieth century - because strong nationalism is merely temporary (immediately post-religious) phase, and rapidly dwindles in just a few decades.
*
(Modern nationalism is merely a sub-type of Leftism - the self-award of victim status to a whole nation.)
*
So, a non-nationalist fascism was possible, but it would probably be small and weak. The fascisms which were successful enough to get themselves a piece of power were nationalist.
*
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query fascism leftism. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query fascism leftism. Sort by date Show all posts
Friday 17 August 2012
Wednesday 31 March 2021
What we have Now is Not 'fascism' (not even 'neo'-fascism) - what is it?
Some people have noticed that the current global totalitarian system is more like fascism than communism, specifically in terms of its relationship between the state and the corporations. (In the sense that communism has every-thing nationalized, and included in the state system, while in fascism the state and corporations are aligned by a single, compulsorily-enforced ideology, but not ownership...)
On this basis, it is being said that we live in a fascist system; here-and-now, in 2021...
Well, I am tempted to say "I wish!" - because what we actually have is far, far more evil than any of the fascisms.
A form of economic ownership and state-corporate relationships was hardly the defining feature of real-life fascism, as it briefly existed in mid-twentieth century Italy and Germany!
Fascism was characterized ideologically by being a secular, explicitly-leftist movement that was also strongly anti-communist (which meant, mostly, anti-nationalization). But hardly anybody notice that aspect of fascism (except for the owners of corporations, hence their support for fascism when it was the most viable alternative to communism)
Positively fascism was a dictatorship motivated by militaristic nationalistic pride.
The country was to be run on military lines, and the country was to be celebrated and glorified. That was was people saw, and liked, about fascism - and where it scored so heavily over communism.
The motivations of fascism were comprehensible, human, and non-paradoxical - whereas communism was - like mainstream modern leftism - negatively, oppositionally, motivated. The communist atrocities and purges were all 'against' something (the bourgeois, the Kulaks, the Jews, reactionary saboteurs...); whereas fascism was motivated by nation-building.
Of course, communists have since tried to reframe fascism as mainly 'about' racism. That clearly was not the case - but it is a telling projection; because if the communists had been running fascism, then it certainly would have been about racism!
In other words, to the communist-leftist mind, the only way to motivate people is in opposition; thus they cannot even imagine the kind of positive national pride that was crucial to the (brief) success of fascism. Communistic leftists can only suppose that nationalism was a mask for oppositional racism directed against some particular groups or groups.
Nationalism, including fascism, offered a kind of halfway house - a positive (but temporary) alternative to religion; briefly uniting the country around its positive celebration.
Nationalism/ Fascism still used habits of thinking and motivations derived from the Christian era - but as a secular society, it had no way of renewing these resources - so all nationalisms, everywhere, weakened and declined - and it has not proved possible to revive an effective nationalism anywhere in the world for several decades.
By this analysis, in 2021 we have something new and unprecedented.
What we have is nothing like fascism - except in the double-negative way that it has enlisted the mega-private corporations by Not nationalizing them; and by (for mow...) coopting their interests in the totalitarian world government (public-private partnership).
What we have is much more like communism than fascism - especially The Establishment's uncritical/ warm feelings towards the communist dictatorships of past and present. But this 21st century leftism is post-communist; and has shed the economic focus of Marxism.
(No more nationalization of banks, media and corporations! Come and sit at the high table! So the billionaires are kept wealthy, and 'happy'...).
Gone, too, now - are any positive notions of building a utopia; indeed, any attempt to represent a positive vision of the future sound like one of the fictional nightmare dystopias. We now have the implementation of post-1960s New Left oppositional-identity politics, which grew in the USA and is anti-nationalist, anti-military, anti-white, anti-men, anti-working class (aka. 'white nationalists') etc.
Consequently, They keep the masses focused on rotating negative, oppositional scares and crusades; without mentioning where all this is supposed to be going...
Anyway; the main point here is that what we have now is not fascism, neither is it communism - but is something new and different.
We have a regime built almost entirely on negative and oppositional motivations. We have a populace who do not require heavy-handed violent and physical coercion; because they are so profoundly demotivated, passive and short-termist; that they will believe and go-along-with almost anything that is suggested by their state-media-corporate rulers.
We have a world government of state-media-corporate rulers, we have a world ruled in conformity and global masses who are acquiescent to this totalitarianism ... yet there is no clear, simple, comprehensible positive ideology in which they are ruling.
We are not going-towards any-particular-thing - or maybe, we are pretending to go-towards dozens of particular but incompatible things, each pretense being maintained for a few hours, days or weeks... Then swapped-out for something else equally temporary and insincere.
The obvious but ignored fact is that we now (obvious since early 2020) have a world government for the first time, with an international scope for action...
But that government is not aiming to build anything in particular; instead it is being used* to destroy itself - partly by setting each against all; and partly by Just Plain Destruction... Stopping great swathes of the economy, stopping human interaction, stopping... almost everything.
Just Plain Destruction.
Not-doing, Stopping, Preventing... these are the huge facts of these times; and these times are fundamentally un-like any time or place before, ever.
*'Used' by whom? By the evil supernatural forces of evil - Satan, and the demons of destruction.
Sunday 26 January 2014
Is it correct to state that Neo-Reactionaries of the 'Dark Enlightenment' are 'Neo-fascists'?
*
The Neo-reactionary bloggers of the 'Dark Enlightenment' (e.g. those who regard 'Mencius Moldbug' as a guide and mentor) have been noticed by the mainstream mass media, and subjected to some hostile (albeit contradictory) rhetorical attacks.
In particular, they are being called Neo-fascists.
*
Is this correct? In a nutshell, my answer (below) is that yes it is correct, yes the N-Rs of the DE are Neo-fascist; but not for the reasons that the mainstream journalists give.
The mainstream Leftists regard fascism (whether Old- or Neo-) as bad because it is anti-Left; but as a Christian I oppose fascism (and hence oppose Neo-reactionaries of the Dark Enlightenment) because fascism is essentially non-Christian, and in practice strongly tends to be anti-Christian.
*
I have written fairly extensively against the Dark Enlightenment/ Neo-Reaction from my perspective as a Christian who is fundamentally opposed to any secular anti-Christian ideology; and one who regards repentance as the absolutely-necessary first step towards any good political change.
(And yes, this makes me a pessimist.)
If you want to read the stuff, I suggest you word-search this blog.
Anyway, the present situation was one which I anticipated a few years ago.
*
The intellectual quality of the articles on the Neo-Reactionaries is, of course, poor: they are careless, ignorant and dishonest.
This is not exceptional, since that is the nature of the modern mass media.
But, when the Dark Enlightenment gets called Neo-fascist by these mainstream journalists this is interesting; because the name is strictly correct - albeit right for the wrong reasons.
(On those rare occasions that the Left is correct, it is almost always right for a wrong reason!)
*
The mainstream journalists have called the Dark Enlightenment/ Neo-Reactionaries fascist because of their attitude to race, their 'race-realism'.
But this emphasis betrays that the journalists are engaging in gang warfare rather than analysis. Because fascism-as-such has in essence nothing necessarily to do with race. (Mussoloni - the first successful self-described fascist - was not racist when he took power.)
Actual fascism is historically a very recent ideology and has been very rare. Fascism is essentially a post-communist phenomenon - in practice only becoming powerful after the Russian Revolution of 1917 (although of course its roots can be traced further back).
*
On the other hand, Neo-fascism is indeed focused on race; but only because it is a reaction against the modern, mainstream, politically correct Left (the Left that rules the developed world - noting that 'the Left' includes all the mainstream 'conservative' or 'republican' parties): and of course PC is race-obsessed.
Thus any opposition to dominant modern Leftism will necessarily oppose politically correct anti-racism - not because this is a central focus to the the opposition, but because race is a central focus for the mainstream modern Left.
*
(In fact, on the whole racism was much more of a communist and Old Left thing than it was a fascist thing. Communist societies engage in all sorts of racism - albeit inconsistently; since communists are too unprincipled to be consistent when that is inexpedient - e.g. the Nazi-Soviet pact of 1939. In various phases, Soviet Russia tried to exterminate Christians and eliminate Christianity; and (mostly) killed, or long-term imprisoned, many thousands of bishops, monks and priests, plus some tens of millions of faithful believers (Yep, they did - it was a larger scale although less 'efficient' operation than the Nazi Holocaust.). They were also intermittently anti-semitic. And it was the Trades Union-dominated Old Left which preserved race-based policies and practices in the USA in the post Civil War era and up to the 1960s. It is only since the domination of the New Left - ruled by the upper class intellectuals with their 'personal' (not economic) issues such as feminism and sexual license - that anti-racism has been co-opted as a Leftist cause, and bigotry has become regarded as the worst of all possible sins.)
*
(By analogy, religious opposition to dominant modern Leftism will necessarily oppose the sexual revolution - not because traditional sexuality is a central focus to (or 'obsession' of) traditional religion; but because the sexual revolution is the major and most effective weapon used by the Left to weaken, subvert, colonize and invert traditional religion. Naturally, therefore, sexuality will become a major battleground.)
*
Neo-Reactionaries/ the Dark Enlightment are indeed fascist - because they are:
1. A secular Right wing movement
2. Intellectually in-reaction-against the Left
...hence they are 'fascist' - because that is what fascism is: it is secular anti-communism - a non-religious reaction-against communism.
Plus, Neo-Reactionary/ Dark Enlightenment bloggers are
3. Reacting against the New Left - i.e. the politically correct, post-nineteen-sixties Left - hence they are indeed 'Neo'.
*
So the label of Neo-fascist is accurate, albeit being applied for the wrong reasons.
Where the Left are objectively wrong is in lumping all their enemies into the fascist category - by putting the real fascists who are secular together with the religious Right.
(I know they do this, because when I was a Leftist it is exactly what I did too!).
The Religious Right is essentially utterly different from fascism, because it is religious! The Religious Right wants to put religion at the centre of national life (note: this is not synonymous with a system of 'theocracy' - theocracy is only one way of trying to make religion the focus of life).
This does not seem like an important difference to the Left; because the Left are secular and don't believe in religion, think religion is nonsense, and therefore don't take religion seriously.
*
(For example the Left always explain-away religious martyrdom as being due to either social/ economic factors or mental illness - they cannot believe that religion is a real, powerful motivation - indeed the most powerful motivation - because they themselves do not share it. This is another thing I know from personal experience; when I was an atheist, I simply could not believe that religion was a real cause of anything significant - but I always looked to some other explanation for human behaviour, such as class differences, nationalism, economic self-interest, organized crime... I saw religions as merely a mixture of wishful thinking fantasy and rationalized hatred; hence not the kind of thing which could motivate extreme commitment.)
*
A few years ago I predicted that the Left would call any secular Right movement fascist, and that in doing so they would be broadly correct.
I also predicted that so long as the secular Right denied the fascist label they would be powerless, but if they ever felt strong enough to accept the fascist label openly and explicitly and were able to survive the backlash... then that would be the time to worry about them.
Therefore, when mainstream Leftist journalists call the Dark Enlightenment Neo-fascist, they are testing it; testing whether the movement is likely to be dangerous.
If Neo-Reactionaries fight the fascist label - then that is fine: they are revealed as lacking clarity and self-awareness, as craving acceptance, as having insignificant commitment, motivation and power.
To reject the fascist label demonstrates to the ruling Leftist elites that Neo-Reactionaries can easily be controlled by some mixture of mockery and demonization, and subversion by recognition, and buying-out (and this latter may be a motivation for some of the leading N-Rs of the DE - they are covertly hoping to sell-out and be co-opted by the mainstream!).
But if, when tested, the fascist label was accepted; then the response would be serious suppression by the usual Leftist means. This would be hard/ impossible for the Dark Enlightenment to survive - but if the Neo-Reactionaries did become explicitly fascist AND also survived the consequent suppression; then it would be a case of Be Afraid: Be Very Afraid for the Leftist elites.
**
I predicted this current situation when I wrote my book Thought Prison: the fundamental nature of political correctness
I have emphasized the relevant passages in bold.
http://thoughtprison-pc.blogspot.co.uk
(...)
*
This list suggests that secular modern politics boils down either to political correctness or what could be (and almost certainly would be) termed a kind of ‘fascism’.
Maybe at some point the secular Right will eventually stop fighting the ‘fascist’ label and become openly and explicitly fascist - but distancing themselves from the National Socialist type of (semi) fascism?
*
The religious Right is not fascist: fascism is secular hence modern; and the religious Right is pre-modern and much more ancient than fascism. Indeed the religious Right was pretty much all there was in pre-modern times: conflict being between different varieties of religious Right.
The huge difference between religious Right and secular Right is that the religious Right seeks to rule society primarily by religious principles, by religious goals. By contrast the common sense secular Right (fascism) is justified on the basis of this-worldly common sense goals: such as the aim to make its supporters happier and richer; to provide a glorious national or ethnic purpose; to forge a new community of the heart.
(...)
*
The Neo-reactionary bloggers of the 'Dark Enlightenment' (e.g. those who regard 'Mencius Moldbug' as a guide and mentor) have been noticed by the mainstream mass media, and subjected to some hostile (albeit contradictory) rhetorical attacks.
In particular, they are being called Neo-fascists.
*
Is this correct? In a nutshell, my answer (below) is that yes it is correct, yes the N-Rs of the DE are Neo-fascist; but not for the reasons that the mainstream journalists give.
The mainstream Leftists regard fascism (whether Old- or Neo-) as bad because it is anti-Left; but as a Christian I oppose fascism (and hence oppose Neo-reactionaries of the Dark Enlightenment) because fascism is essentially non-Christian, and in practice strongly tends to be anti-Christian.
*
I have written fairly extensively against the Dark Enlightenment/ Neo-Reaction from my perspective as a Christian who is fundamentally opposed to any secular anti-Christian ideology; and one who regards repentance as the absolutely-necessary first step towards any good political change.
(And yes, this makes me a pessimist.)
If you want to read the stuff, I suggest you word-search this blog.
Anyway, the present situation was one which I anticipated a few years ago.
*
The intellectual quality of the articles on the Neo-Reactionaries is, of course, poor: they are careless, ignorant and dishonest.
This is not exceptional, since that is the nature of the modern mass media.
But, when the Dark Enlightenment gets called Neo-fascist by these mainstream journalists this is interesting; because the name is strictly correct - albeit right for the wrong reasons.
(On those rare occasions that the Left is correct, it is almost always right for a wrong reason!)
*
The mainstream journalists have called the Dark Enlightenment/ Neo-Reactionaries fascist because of their attitude to race, their 'race-realism'.
But this emphasis betrays that the journalists are engaging in gang warfare rather than analysis. Because fascism-as-such has in essence nothing necessarily to do with race. (Mussoloni - the first successful self-described fascist - was not racist when he took power.)
Actual fascism is historically a very recent ideology and has been very rare. Fascism is essentially a post-communist phenomenon - in practice only becoming powerful after the Russian Revolution of 1917 (although of course its roots can be traced further back).
*
On the other hand, Neo-fascism is indeed focused on race; but only because it is a reaction against the modern, mainstream, politically correct Left (the Left that rules the developed world - noting that 'the Left' includes all the mainstream 'conservative' or 'republican' parties): and of course PC is race-obsessed.
Thus any opposition to dominant modern Leftism will necessarily oppose politically correct anti-racism - not because this is a central focus to the the opposition, but because race is a central focus for the mainstream modern Left.
*
(In fact, on the whole racism was much more of a communist and Old Left thing than it was a fascist thing. Communist societies engage in all sorts of racism - albeit inconsistently; since communists are too unprincipled to be consistent when that is inexpedient - e.g. the Nazi-Soviet pact of 1939. In various phases, Soviet Russia tried to exterminate Christians and eliminate Christianity; and (mostly) killed, or long-term imprisoned, many thousands of bishops, monks and priests, plus some tens of millions of faithful believers (Yep, they did - it was a larger scale although less 'efficient' operation than the Nazi Holocaust.). They were also intermittently anti-semitic. And it was the Trades Union-dominated Old Left which preserved race-based policies and practices in the USA in the post Civil War era and up to the 1960s. It is only since the domination of the New Left - ruled by the upper class intellectuals with their 'personal' (not economic) issues such as feminism and sexual license - that anti-racism has been co-opted as a Leftist cause, and bigotry has become regarded as the worst of all possible sins.)
*
(By analogy, religious opposition to dominant modern Leftism will necessarily oppose the sexual revolution - not because traditional sexuality is a central focus to (or 'obsession' of) traditional religion; but because the sexual revolution is the major and most effective weapon used by the Left to weaken, subvert, colonize and invert traditional religion. Naturally, therefore, sexuality will become a major battleground.)
*
Neo-Reactionaries/ the Dark Enlightment are indeed fascist - because they are:
1. A secular Right wing movement
2. Intellectually in-reaction-against the Left
...hence they are 'fascist' - because that is what fascism is: it is secular anti-communism - a non-religious reaction-against communism.
Plus, Neo-Reactionary/ Dark Enlightenment bloggers are
3. Reacting against the New Left - i.e. the politically correct, post-nineteen-sixties Left - hence they are indeed 'Neo'.
*
So the label of Neo-fascist is accurate, albeit being applied for the wrong reasons.
Where the Left are objectively wrong is in lumping all their enemies into the fascist category - by putting the real fascists who are secular together with the religious Right.
(I know they do this, because when I was a Leftist it is exactly what I did too!).
The Religious Right is essentially utterly different from fascism, because it is religious! The Religious Right wants to put religion at the centre of national life (note: this is not synonymous with a system of 'theocracy' - theocracy is only one way of trying to make religion the focus of life).
This does not seem like an important difference to the Left; because the Left are secular and don't believe in religion, think religion is nonsense, and therefore don't take religion seriously.
*
(For example the Left always explain-away religious martyrdom as being due to either social/ economic factors or mental illness - they cannot believe that religion is a real, powerful motivation - indeed the most powerful motivation - because they themselves do not share it. This is another thing I know from personal experience; when I was an atheist, I simply could not believe that religion was a real cause of anything significant - but I always looked to some other explanation for human behaviour, such as class differences, nationalism, economic self-interest, organized crime... I saw religions as merely a mixture of wishful thinking fantasy and rationalized hatred; hence not the kind of thing which could motivate extreme commitment.)
*
A few years ago I predicted that the Left would call any secular Right movement fascist, and that in doing so they would be broadly correct.
I also predicted that so long as the secular Right denied the fascist label they would be powerless, but if they ever felt strong enough to accept the fascist label openly and explicitly and were able to survive the backlash... then that would be the time to worry about them.
Therefore, when mainstream Leftist journalists call the Dark Enlightenment Neo-fascist, they are testing it; testing whether the movement is likely to be dangerous.
If Neo-Reactionaries fight the fascist label - then that is fine: they are revealed as lacking clarity and self-awareness, as craving acceptance, as having insignificant commitment, motivation and power.
To reject the fascist label demonstrates to the ruling Leftist elites that Neo-Reactionaries can easily be controlled by some mixture of mockery and demonization, and subversion by recognition, and buying-out (and this latter may be a motivation for some of the leading N-Rs of the DE - they are covertly hoping to sell-out and be co-opted by the mainstream!).
But if, when tested, the fascist label was accepted; then the response would be serious suppression by the usual Leftist means. This would be hard/ impossible for the Dark Enlightenment to survive - but if the Neo-Reactionaries did become explicitly fascist AND also survived the consequent suppression; then it would be a case of Be Afraid: Be Very Afraid for the Leftist elites.
**
I predicted this current situation when I wrote my book Thought Prison: the fundamental nature of political correctness
I have emphasized the relevant passages in bold.
http://thoughtprison-pc.blogspot.co.uk
(...)
Could a party of ‘common sense’ replace political correctness?
With
the profound weakness of mainstream Christianity in the West (due to
subversion by Leftism and subordination to PC), and with the weakness of
old-style nationalism (led by the lower levels of the upper class –
teachers, minor civil servants and journalists - who are now the most
zealous of the politically correct), and with the unlikeliness of a new
nationalism of the tradesman/ NCO class – then the most likely
opposition to political correctness (especially in the USA) currently
comes from populist, reactionary, secular groups based on common sense.
From
a Christian perspective, such groupings are seriously sub-optimal - at
best a temporary expedient. Nonetheless, supposing that common sense
secularism was actually to become powerful - what then? Could it, would
it provide a better alternative future than PC? What would that future
be?
This can be predicted by considering the probable characteristics of such a grouping - and weighing-up the pros and cons.
*
Since
so much of Western society is now corrupted by Liberalism and
implicated in PC, such a group would have to come from outside this -
and in rejecting the psychotic delusionality of PC it would need to
offer a common sense alternative which would be obvious to plain,
middling, productive people outwith the intelligentsia and their
underclass of state-dependents.
And since a common sense party would be reactive against PC, we can infer its main features.
*
Here
is a non-exhaustive list (in no particular order) of characteristics of
a possible Common Sense (CS) party contrasted with the politically
correct (PC) party.
CS v PC:
1. Natural and spontaneous versus Human designed
2. Reality is real and fixed versus Reality is relative and plastic
3. Coercive force versus Propaganda
4. Face to face versus Mass media
5. Concrete versus Abstract
6. Immediate versus Utopian
7. Instinctive versus Educated
8. Native versus Immigrant
9. Popular culture versus High art
10. Practical versus Theoretical
11. Invention versus Science
12. White versus Non-white
13. Heredity versus Culture
14. Apprenticeship versus Formal education
15. Men versus Women
16. Recognition versus Certification
17. Selfish versus Altruistic
18. Personal authority versus Bureaucratic procedure
19. Heterosexual versus Homosexual
20. Heart versus Head
21. Gut versus Intellect
22. National versus International
23. Tribal versus Outcast
24. Family versus Universalist
25. Real versus Ideal
26. Morality versus Law
27. Natural law versus Moral inversion
28. Courage versus Tolerance
29. Loyalty versus Subversion
30. Useful versus Useless
31. Duty versus Self-development
32. Productive versus Ideologically-sound
33. Money-grubbing versus Parasitic
34. Responsibilities versus Rights
35. Charity versus Needs
36. Hierarchy versus Egalitarianism
*
This list suggests that secular modern politics boils down either to political correctness or what could be (and almost certainly would be) termed a kind of ‘fascism’.
In other words fascism is approximately what you get when political correctness is opposed with common sense.
Of course, the Left has been calling the Right fascist since the mid-1960s: I am suggesting that in doing this the Left are broadly correct.
However, there are two important qualifications 1. that the fascist label properly applies only to the secular Right – not the religious Right; and 2. fascism is not synonymous with the Nazis - who were substantially a socialist and Leftist party, as the name of National Socialism implies.Maybe at some point the secular Right will eventually stop fighting the ‘fascist’ label and become openly and explicitly fascist - but distancing themselves from the National Socialist type of (semi) fascism?
*
The religious Right is not fascist: fascism is secular hence modern; and the religious Right is pre-modern and much more ancient than fascism. Indeed the religious Right was pretty much all there was in pre-modern times: conflict being between different varieties of religious Right.
The huge difference between religious Right and secular Right is that the religious Right seeks to rule society primarily by religious principles, by religious goals. By contrast the common sense secular Right (fascism) is justified on the basis of this-worldly common sense goals: such as the aim to make its supporters happier and richer; to provide a glorious national or ethnic purpose; to forge a new community of the heart.
(...)
*
Sunday 29 January 2017
What means that weasel-word 'populism'? Does it imply 'fascism' or the opposite?
From the perspective of the global elite, their servants in the mass media and the corrupted dupes among the intelligentsia who sustain them; populism means to be opposed to the rulership of the the global elite, their servants in the mass media and the corrupted dupes among the intelligentsia who sustain them.
And indeed, those who oppose the rulership of the global elites etc. would agree!
The difference of opinion about 'populism' is what it implies...
The question is: does populism imply 'fascism' or its opposite?
The global elites etc. imply that to oppose their rule is to favour 'fascism'.
But those who oppose the global elites etc. believe that 'fascism' is exactly what the global elites etc have given us, what they approve of, and what they are intending to give us more of.
*
(I put 'fascism' in quotes, because I believe the term is being misused by both sides - my understanding of fascism is that it was secular anti-communism - a non-religious reaction against communism. Since class-based utopian communism doesn't exist anymore in The West, but since has 'evolved' into the permanent revolution of New Leftism - 'identity politics'/ feminism/ antiracism/ multiculti/ sexual revolution/ political correctness - any modern 'fascism' must mean something qualitatively different from what it did in the past. Also. modern 'fascism' is (unlike the real thing) a label that nobody of significance explicitly embraces for themselves.)
*
I disagree with all secular politics as inadequate, ineffective and ultimately evil; although naturally - not being utterly insane, dishonest or corrupted - I disagree with the intentions of the global elite etc. much more than I disagree with the political aims of those who oppose them.
But opposition to the intentions of the global elite is not sufficient actually to improve things - at all depends on what is instead being aimed at.
And if the aims are secular - economic, political, utilitarian etc - then they cannot lead to anything more morally compelling than the world conceptualised as a glorified farmyard - an 'animal farm' indeed - where life is merely and ultimately about a choice of defining winners and losers, haves versus have-nots, exploiters and exploited...
In such a secular world; whoever is chosen, or whoever currently is a winner by 'luck' or force or skill...; in the end everybody will lose due to age, disease... and death.
And indeed, those who oppose the rulership of the global elites etc. would agree!
The difference of opinion about 'populism' is what it implies...
The question is: does populism imply 'fascism' or its opposite?
The global elites etc. imply that to oppose their rule is to favour 'fascism'.
But those who oppose the global elites etc. believe that 'fascism' is exactly what the global elites etc have given us, what they approve of, and what they are intending to give us more of.
*
(I put 'fascism' in quotes, because I believe the term is being misused by both sides - my understanding of fascism is that it was secular anti-communism - a non-religious reaction against communism. Since class-based utopian communism doesn't exist anymore in The West, but since has 'evolved' into the permanent revolution of New Leftism - 'identity politics'/ feminism/ antiracism/ multiculti/ sexual revolution/ political correctness - any modern 'fascism' must mean something qualitatively different from what it did in the past. Also. modern 'fascism' is (unlike the real thing) a label that nobody of significance explicitly embraces for themselves.)
*
I disagree with all secular politics as inadequate, ineffective and ultimately evil; although naturally - not being utterly insane, dishonest or corrupted - I disagree with the intentions of the global elite etc. much more than I disagree with the political aims of those who oppose them.
But opposition to the intentions of the global elite is not sufficient actually to improve things - at all depends on what is instead being aimed at.
And if the aims are secular - economic, political, utilitarian etc - then they cannot lead to anything more morally compelling than the world conceptualised as a glorified farmyard - an 'animal farm' indeed - where life is merely and ultimately about a choice of defining winners and losers, haves versus have-nots, exploiters and exploited...
In such a secular world; whoever is chosen, or whoever currently is a winner by 'luck' or force or skill...; in the end everybody will lose due to age, disease... and death.
Thursday 11 June 2015
Conceptualizing National Socialism - a negative, reactionary definition
*
National Socialism specifically, and Fascism in general, has never been adequately defined - that is because it was negatively conceptualized as a reaction-against Communism.
When Fascism arose, just after the Russian Revolution, Communism was an urgent and imminent threat. To be anti-Communist was, for many people - indeed significant majorities in some countries - sufficient; so Fascism and National Socialism attracted powerful and highly-motivated supporters.
Such supporters were drawn from a wide spectrum of anti-Communists, including religious groups and persons; but Fascism and National Socialism were themselves secular parties, with secular priorities - they did not envisage running the state according to and within religious priorities.
So, National Socialism seemed OK because they were against the primary threat of Communism; but, of course, they weren't OK.
*
Update to now - modern secular reaction is also negatively conceptualized and secular - being against the New Left/ Feminism/ Antiracism/ Political Correctness/ Social Justice Warriors and the rest of it.
But the difference is that New Leftism is not new (its dominance dates from the middle 1960s), nor is its threat urgent and immediate - not least because New Leftism is The Establishment.
Therefore, (unlike Fascism and National Socialism) reaction against the New Left is not powerful, nor is it a majority, nor is it highly-motivated.
Furthermore, it may seem that any party who is against the insane evils of the New Left is OK, just what we need. We might even be tempted to wish for a secular reactionary revolution. But - even if there was sufficient support for it to happen - any anti-Left party with secular priorities that attained power would surely go the same way as National Socialism or Fascism - why not?
Do not tempt fate by thinking, or saying, 'anything is better than' or 'things can't get worse'... That is a sure and certain path to things becoming very bad, very swiftly.
*
National Socialism specifically, and Fascism in general, has never been adequately defined - that is because it was negatively conceptualized as a reaction-against Communism.
When Fascism arose, just after the Russian Revolution, Communism was an urgent and imminent threat. To be anti-Communist was, for many people - indeed significant majorities in some countries - sufficient; so Fascism and National Socialism attracted powerful and highly-motivated supporters.
Such supporters were drawn from a wide spectrum of anti-Communists, including religious groups and persons; but Fascism and National Socialism were themselves secular parties, with secular priorities - they did not envisage running the state according to and within religious priorities.
So, National Socialism seemed OK because they were against the primary threat of Communism; but, of course, they weren't OK.
*
Update to now - modern secular reaction is also negatively conceptualized and secular - being against the New Left/ Feminism/ Antiracism/ Political Correctness/ Social Justice Warriors and the rest of it.
But the difference is that New Leftism is not new (its dominance dates from the middle 1960s), nor is its threat urgent and immediate - not least because New Leftism is The Establishment.
Therefore, (unlike Fascism and National Socialism) reaction against the New Left is not powerful, nor is it a majority, nor is it highly-motivated.
Furthermore, it may seem that any party who is against the insane evils of the New Left is OK, just what we need. We might even be tempted to wish for a secular reactionary revolution. But - even if there was sufficient support for it to happen - any anti-Left party with secular priorities that attained power would surely go the same way as National Socialism or Fascism - why not?
Do not tempt fate by thinking, or saying, 'anything is better than' or 'things can't get worse'... That is a sure and certain path to things becoming very bad, very swiftly.
*
Thursday 6 March 2014
Christian alliances: individual and social - Exercise your inner judgementalism!
*
I have been publicly a Christian for not much more than five years - although it feels much longer.
It feels like time has slowed-up in the same way that parents' memories of the first five years of their first born child is slowed-up - so much happens in such a concentrated way, that subjectively it represents a much bigger proportion of my life.
Many things have changed and many things continue to change - and one of them is the decline of optimism in the growth of Christian alliances.
*
I used to have a simple vision of the power of Christians taking-sides: in particular of ceasing to support groups with evil intentions, and of starting to support those with good intentions - of tipping the balance of influence in that fashion.
But I had underestimated the degree to which almost all groups, and all large and powerful groups, in the developed-world have been first subverted then incrementally-demolished by their leaders (from the top downwards) - and since all hopes of group alliances depend on cooperation between leaders, the taking of sides has gone in the opposite direction from that which I hoped.
Christian alliance-building, such as the 'ecumenical' movement, has in practice been a matter of apostates and anti-Christian leaders joining together to demolish the faith of their flocks - using alliance building as an excuse.
Their idea of Christian cooperation is one in which everybody's faith has become so weak and superficial that there is no reason remaining why all self-identified "Christians" cannot join hands and march forward together in implementing the projects of something very much like international socialism.
*
Christianity is NOT the opposite of secular Leftism - that would be the reaction against Leftism and something more like (secular) fascism - but secular Leftism IS the opposite of Christianity in an Antichrist way: Leftism dishonestly mimics some features of Christianity - e.g. tactically pretends to love, truth, humility, meaning and purpose - but in practice is destructive.
Tactically and temporarily the Left allies with anybody who can provide (temporary) grounds for its work of destruction. The Left used to ally with native male proletarians, it used to ally with Christian socialists of the Anglo Catholic type (who then dominated the Church of England when Britain was a world power), it used to have Israel and China as their international poster children. But all these are now hate groups for the Left.
*
In recent times the Left allies with pacifists when pacifism used to have the greatest potential for destruction of Christianity - for example during the Vietnam war when Leftists temporarily linked pacifism with the sexual revolution.
In a nutshell, the Left are doves when the cause is good (or pro-God), and hawks when the cause is bad, futile or just plain incomprehensible
But Leftists also support new 'random' (i.e. seemingly unmotivated, wasteful and futile, anti-self-interested) acts of military aggression and support of rebellion when that seems more destructive (e.g. for the past few years and currently in the Middle East 'spring' revolutions, the one certain result of which has been the near-total elimination of Christianity in that region).
And the Left's latest anti-pacifist aggressive agitation is related to the Ukraine, where they sense vast possibilities of destructive consequences with near zero chance of benefit.
*
So the Left is willing to ally with anybody, for a while, in order to implement whatever destructive possibilities seem most urgent and fruitful - and this includes even supposedly-Christian leaders such as Pope Francis and the current and previous Archbishops of Canterbury, and Reformed Jewish Rabbis.
Christian alliances, on the other hand, are continually blocked and subverted by their leadership - who are a fifth column within.
So far as I can see, real Christians are mostly on their own - in worldly terms.
If they join one of the non-corrupt denominations which have Christian (rather than Leftist) leaders, they will often find that denomination to be small and weak - capable of great good in a small way but in no wise capable of turning the tide of Leftism.
*
This does not change Christian strategy. I think we still must seek alliances with those who are working for good, and (as far as possible) stop supporting strategic evil.
But good tending initiatives will often be at the personal and individual level, or in small and self-selected groups; and autonomous from official and leadership-driven changes.
*
This means that 'judgmentalism' is absolutely vital to the modern Christian.
Christians cannot allow themselves systematically to 'give the benefit of the doubt' to organizations and leaders who are very likely working for the destruction of Christianity and all Good. Instead Christians must use all their powers of discernment to detect evil intentions, especially when these are concealed behind fair words, smiling faces and acts of manipulative kindness.
*
(Most of the servants of strategic evil are consciously unaware of their tendency - for most of the time, anyway; they believe themselves to be 'on the side of the angels' while operating under orders from demons. They are quite happy, for the time being, to be 85 percent in service to Good; so long as the 15 percent of destructive evil has a greater pay-off and ratchets the world towards even greater destruction - the sexual revolution (aka sexual 'liberation') being the major conduit for strategic destruction.)
*
I think Christians must be absolutely explicit, in their own minds and among themselves, about the identity of strategic evil, and that this is the majority dominant tendency in the world.
Active resistance may be impossible. Passive resistance may be the only option - and (lacking a leadership) this must generally be at the individual level.
In so far as is possible, probably in multiple tiny ways, Christians need to withdraw all possible forms of support from strategic evil - labour, funding, rhetoric, approving nods of the head... Refusing funding/ subsidy/ subversive control, declining to participate in evil-tending activities, not putting significant amounts of money into the collection tins of evil-tending charities.
(i.e. most of them. Ask yourself - is any charity actively supported - nay, rammed down your throat! - by the BBC, or the NYT, or any major media organization likely to have an overall tendency to promote good, or evil?)
*
Do individual acts of allocation of support/ withdrawal of support make any difference?
Apparently yes - otherwise individuals would not be harassed and persecuted for doing them.
But how could such microscopic things ever be known about or ever have the slightest benefit?
Easy - we are engaged not in a worldly battle but spiritual warfare.
Whereas worldly powers may not detect micro-behaviours; spiritual powers (powers of evil, as well as good) can and do detect pretty much everything that happens - and perceive covert causal links and tendencies which we cannot detect.
Micro-alliances and micro-allocations are noticed, are known, and have an effect in the spiritual realm - for good or for ill.
*
Be judgemental!
**
Reference:
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/christians-must-exercise-discernment.html
I have been publicly a Christian for not much more than five years - although it feels much longer.
It feels like time has slowed-up in the same way that parents' memories of the first five years of their first born child is slowed-up - so much happens in such a concentrated way, that subjectively it represents a much bigger proportion of my life.
Many things have changed and many things continue to change - and one of them is the decline of optimism in the growth of Christian alliances.
*
I used to have a simple vision of the power of Christians taking-sides: in particular of ceasing to support groups with evil intentions, and of starting to support those with good intentions - of tipping the balance of influence in that fashion.
But I had underestimated the degree to which almost all groups, and all large and powerful groups, in the developed-world have been first subverted then incrementally-demolished by their leaders (from the top downwards) - and since all hopes of group alliances depend on cooperation between leaders, the taking of sides has gone in the opposite direction from that which I hoped.
Christian alliance-building, such as the 'ecumenical' movement, has in practice been a matter of apostates and anti-Christian leaders joining together to demolish the faith of their flocks - using alliance building as an excuse.
Their idea of Christian cooperation is one in which everybody's faith has become so weak and superficial that there is no reason remaining why all self-identified "Christians" cannot join hands and march forward together in implementing the projects of something very much like international socialism.
*
Christianity is NOT the opposite of secular Leftism - that would be the reaction against Leftism and something more like (secular) fascism - but secular Leftism IS the opposite of Christianity in an Antichrist way: Leftism dishonestly mimics some features of Christianity - e.g. tactically pretends to love, truth, humility, meaning and purpose - but in practice is destructive.
Tactically and temporarily the Left allies with anybody who can provide (temporary) grounds for its work of destruction. The Left used to ally with native male proletarians, it used to ally with Christian socialists of the Anglo Catholic type (who then dominated the Church of England when Britain was a world power), it used to have Israel and China as their international poster children. But all these are now hate groups for the Left.
*
In recent times the Left allies with pacifists when pacifism used to have the greatest potential for destruction of Christianity - for example during the Vietnam war when Leftists temporarily linked pacifism with the sexual revolution.
In a nutshell, the Left are doves when the cause is good (or pro-God), and hawks when the cause is bad, futile or just plain incomprehensible
But Leftists also support new 'random' (i.e. seemingly unmotivated, wasteful and futile, anti-self-interested) acts of military aggression and support of rebellion when that seems more destructive (e.g. for the past few years and currently in the Middle East 'spring' revolutions, the one certain result of which has been the near-total elimination of Christianity in that region).
And the Left's latest anti-pacifist aggressive agitation is related to the Ukraine, where they sense vast possibilities of destructive consequences with near zero chance of benefit.
*
So the Left is willing to ally with anybody, for a while, in order to implement whatever destructive possibilities seem most urgent and fruitful - and this includes even supposedly-Christian leaders such as Pope Francis and the current and previous Archbishops of Canterbury, and Reformed Jewish Rabbis.
Christian alliances, on the other hand, are continually blocked and subverted by their leadership - who are a fifth column within.
So far as I can see, real Christians are mostly on their own - in worldly terms.
If they join one of the non-corrupt denominations which have Christian (rather than Leftist) leaders, they will often find that denomination to be small and weak - capable of great good in a small way but in no wise capable of turning the tide of Leftism.
*
This does not change Christian strategy. I think we still must seek alliances with those who are working for good, and (as far as possible) stop supporting strategic evil.
But good tending initiatives will often be at the personal and individual level, or in small and self-selected groups; and autonomous from official and leadership-driven changes.
*
This means that 'judgmentalism' is absolutely vital to the modern Christian.
Christians cannot allow themselves systematically to 'give the benefit of the doubt' to organizations and leaders who are very likely working for the destruction of Christianity and all Good. Instead Christians must use all their powers of discernment to detect evil intentions, especially when these are concealed behind fair words, smiling faces and acts of manipulative kindness.
*
(Most of the servants of strategic evil are consciously unaware of their tendency - for most of the time, anyway; they believe themselves to be 'on the side of the angels' while operating under orders from demons. They are quite happy, for the time being, to be 85 percent in service to Good; so long as the 15 percent of destructive evil has a greater pay-off and ratchets the world towards even greater destruction - the sexual revolution (aka sexual 'liberation') being the major conduit for strategic destruction.)
*
I think Christians must be absolutely explicit, in their own minds and among themselves, about the identity of strategic evil, and that this is the majority dominant tendency in the world.
Active resistance may be impossible. Passive resistance may be the only option - and (lacking a leadership) this must generally be at the individual level.
In so far as is possible, probably in multiple tiny ways, Christians need to withdraw all possible forms of support from strategic evil - labour, funding, rhetoric, approving nods of the head... Refusing funding/ subsidy/ subversive control, declining to participate in evil-tending activities, not putting significant amounts of money into the collection tins of evil-tending charities.
(i.e. most of them. Ask yourself - is any charity actively supported - nay, rammed down your throat! - by the BBC, or the NYT, or any major media organization likely to have an overall tendency to promote good, or evil?)
*
Do individual acts of allocation of support/ withdrawal of support make any difference?
Apparently yes - otherwise individuals would not be harassed and persecuted for doing them.
But how could such microscopic things ever be known about or ever have the slightest benefit?
Easy - we are engaged not in a worldly battle but spiritual warfare.
Whereas worldly powers may not detect micro-behaviours; spiritual powers (powers of evil, as well as good) can and do detect pretty much everything that happens - and perceive covert causal links and tendencies which we cannot detect.
Micro-alliances and micro-allocations are noticed, are known, and have an effect in the spiritual realm - for good or for ill.
*
Be judgemental!
**
Reference:
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/christians-must-exercise-discernment.html
Monday 18 December 2023
This-worldly pseudo-Christians cannot tolerate anything pessimistic, because that makes them feel despair
I have noticed that one of the barriers to (in the first place) valid Christian understanding, and (secondly) to a valid comprehension of how Very Bad things are in the world, now; is a mistakenly This-Worldly and Morality-Centred perspective.
Furthermore, being this-worldly and morality-centred means that such Christians, almost-inevitably, are un-repentantly tainted by Residual Unresolved Leftism; since a TWMC perspective is also characteristics of the socio-political globalist totalitarian mainstream.
Thus; this-worldly and morality-centred "Christians" gravitate towards a world view that could literally (non-pejoratively) be described as a type of Christianized fascism; since fascism was the early twentieth century's primarily-secular reaction against internationalist communism.
Yet, of course, "fascism" is itself a species of Leftism - albeit a less complete and more-functional leftism than communism, socialism, or the current post-sixties "New Left"-ism.
A Christianity that understands itself primarily in this-worldly and moral terms is catastrophically vulnerable to pessimism - where pessimism is understood as the belief that things in this world are already Very Bad Indeed, and most likely to continue getting worse.
Anyone who is fundamentally this-worldly (whether self-identified as Christian, or not) will find it very difficult to avoid despair (which is, of course, a deadly sin) unless he is dogmatically and systematically optimistic; and this means that he cannot tolerate pessimism - no matter whether a pessimistic evaluation of this-world is valid or not.
In other words, for the this-worldly "Christian" an optimistic understanding of this world is mandatory; and any pessimistic evaluation of current and future conditions is absolutely ruled-out, in-advance, by-assumption; otherwise the individual will be overwhelmed by despair.
This partly explains why so many Christians are so falsely optimistic about the condition of the world now, and its probably future; why they are so resistant to a realistic appraisal of this mortal life; and why they are so often drawn into advocating and supporting residually-Leftist and collectivist socio-political programs.
Note: The answer to the impasse - which would enable Christians to be realistic about the nature and prospects of The World - would, of course, be to base one's Christianity primarily upon Jesus Christ's promise of resurrected eternal life; as clearly set forth in the Fourth Gospel ("John").
Tuesday 10 March 2015
The greatest misuse of the agrarian/ industrial revolution: the systematic destruction of meaning by secular Leftism. (Creativity conceptualized as productivity of meaning)
*
The agrarian and industrial revolution was - in the large scheme of things - a great gift to Man; and a gift he has misused.
Increased productivity, more food, better shelter, less work, greater capability... these advantages were supposed to be used in service of higher things; not simply to make more-of-the-same, not to wage more destructive wars, and not to destroy more of the natural world.
But the ultimate crime against the potential of the agrarian and industrial revolution was - philosophical; at the level of what we now call ideology
*
What was distinctive, and unique in the history of the world, in the agrarian and industrial revolutions in England was major and sustained improved economic productivity.
What should have happened, what was meant to happen was that improved economic productivity would support improved meaning productivity - genuine creativity.
*
The overall purpose in life (over a timespan of eternity) might tentatively be defined as creativity, in the true-est sense of the word; in the sense that creativity can perhaps be understood as increasing the productivity of meaning.
In other words, making a given, fixed situation more meaningful; or getting more meaning out of the same situation, ingredients, or energy.
*
This did not happen, indeed the opposite happened.
Instead of there being more meaning, there was less and less - until after just a few generations many leading thinkers and artists claimed, and did their best to exemplify and demonstrated - that there was no meaning at all.
Given the choice of how to use the productive gains of the agrarian/ industrial revolution, Modern Man decided - en masse, by many millions of individual choices - to destroy first of all the existing sources of meaning; and then to destroy the very possibility of meaning.
The destruction of meaning began almost immediately with creeping atheism; but was rapidly continued with the multiplicity of secular Leftisms which gathered like a snowball: socialism, communism, the varieties of Marxism, progressivism, anarchism, fascism, social democracy, libertarianism, 'Christian socialism', environmentalism, political correctness, neo-reaction...
*
Secular Leftism has penetrated the very soul of the West; it is present almost ubiquitously as an assumption behind almost all cultural products and communications - it is a cancer which eats meaning.
This is what Man has done with the greatest power and prosperity in the history of the species!
Instead of using peace, prosperity and capability to sustain a widespread burgeoning meanings in a multitude of human lives; the industrial revolution turned-in-on-itself, to use itself merely to make more of itself.
Man has created a universal cancer of meaning to render one after another things meaningless; and the meaningless world is also a purposeless world, so the whole process is self-destroying.
*
What can be done, what needs to be done, all that can be done; is, as individuals to root-out this anti-creative, meaning-destructive cancer of secular Leftism from our own souls.
To recognize that secular Leftism is not a mere political view; not a humanly-flawed but essentially benign and compassionate perspective - but in its potentially and in its effect nothing less than the primary and distinctive basis of evil-triumphant in the modern world (since evil is defined the destruction of good); the subversion of creativity; and the greatest squandering and perversion of opportunity and perversion of potential in the history of Men.
*
The agrarian and industrial revolution was - in the large scheme of things - a great gift to Man; and a gift he has misused.
Increased productivity, more food, better shelter, less work, greater capability... these advantages were supposed to be used in service of higher things; not simply to make more-of-the-same, not to wage more destructive wars, and not to destroy more of the natural world.
But the ultimate crime against the potential of the agrarian and industrial revolution was - philosophical; at the level of what we now call ideology
*
What was distinctive, and unique in the history of the world, in the agrarian and industrial revolutions in England was major and sustained improved economic productivity.
What should have happened, what was meant to happen was that improved economic productivity would support improved meaning productivity - genuine creativity.
*
The overall purpose in life (over a timespan of eternity) might tentatively be defined as creativity, in the true-est sense of the word; in the sense that creativity can perhaps be understood as increasing the productivity of meaning.
In other words, making a given, fixed situation more meaningful; or getting more meaning out of the same situation, ingredients, or energy.
*
This did not happen, indeed the opposite happened.
Instead of there being more meaning, there was less and less - until after just a few generations many leading thinkers and artists claimed, and did their best to exemplify and demonstrated - that there was no meaning at all.
Given the choice of how to use the productive gains of the agrarian/ industrial revolution, Modern Man decided - en masse, by many millions of individual choices - to destroy first of all the existing sources of meaning; and then to destroy the very possibility of meaning.
The destruction of meaning began almost immediately with creeping atheism; but was rapidly continued with the multiplicity of secular Leftisms which gathered like a snowball: socialism, communism, the varieties of Marxism, progressivism, anarchism, fascism, social democracy, libertarianism, 'Christian socialism', environmentalism, political correctness, neo-reaction...
*
Secular Leftism has penetrated the very soul of the West; it is present almost ubiquitously as an assumption behind almost all cultural products and communications - it is a cancer which eats meaning.
This is what Man has done with the greatest power and prosperity in the history of the species!
Instead of using peace, prosperity and capability to sustain a widespread burgeoning meanings in a multitude of human lives; the industrial revolution turned-in-on-itself, to use itself merely to make more of itself.
Man has created a universal cancer of meaning to render one after another things meaningless; and the meaningless world is also a purposeless world, so the whole process is self-destroying.
*
What can be done, what needs to be done, all that can be done; is, as individuals to root-out this anti-creative, meaning-destructive cancer of secular Leftism from our own souls.
To recognize that secular Leftism is not a mere political view; not a humanly-flawed but essentially benign and compassionate perspective - but in its potentially and in its effect nothing less than the primary and distinctive basis of evil-triumphant in the modern world (since evil is defined the destruction of good); the subversion of creativity; and the greatest squandering and perversion of opportunity and perversion of potential in the history of Men.
*
Sunday 12 August 2012
What is fascism?
*
The definition must be reasonably close to popular usage, yet precise enough to distinguish fascism as a twentieth century phenomenon.
Here is my suggestion - alternatives are invited:
Fascism is a form of government characterized by explicit anti-egalitarian ideals, and with a non-monarchical head of state.
or
A fascist state is an anti-egalitarian republic.
(Where republic denotes that the head of state is not a monarch, and that the state is not intrinsically religious.)
Thus fascism is a reaction - defined more by what it is not, than what it is - a reaction 1. against the egalitarianism of the mainstream left; and a reaction 2. against the divinely-ordained monarchy and/or 'theocracy' (rule by priests) of the traditional (religious) Right.
The Nationalism, which has been a very obvious feature of some fascisms, is therefore regarded as a second-order phenomenon - essentially a means for creating social cohesion: replacing on the one hand religious cohesion, and on the other hand the egalitarian ideology of Leftism.
*
The definition must be reasonably close to popular usage, yet precise enough to distinguish fascism as a twentieth century phenomenon.
Here is my suggestion - alternatives are invited:
Fascism is a form of government characterized by explicit anti-egalitarian ideals, and with a non-monarchical head of state.
or
A fascist state is an anti-egalitarian republic.
(Where republic denotes that the head of state is not a monarch, and that the state is not intrinsically religious.)
Thus fascism is a reaction - defined more by what it is not, than what it is - a reaction 1. against the egalitarianism of the mainstream left; and a reaction 2. against the divinely-ordained monarchy and/or 'theocracy' (rule by priests) of the traditional (religious) Right.
The Nationalism, which has been a very obvious feature of some fascisms, is therefore regarded as a second-order phenomenon - essentially a means for creating social cohesion: replacing on the one hand religious cohesion, and on the other hand the egalitarian ideology of Leftism.
*
Thursday 19 March 2015
The motivation deficit in modernity - and how to overcome it
*
Modern man needs motivation in a way that did not apply to pre-modern societies where the majority of the population were negatively-motivated by the Malthusian lash of starvation, disease and violence; and where the small minority who were not, were either desperately trying to keep themselves above this maelstrom, or who were clinging to power against multiple rivals who would kill them if successful.
So modern man needs motivation - and that motivation must be strong enough and complex enough and long-termist enough to structure his life; and that is exactly what the secular Leftism which now dominates the developed world some completely and utterly fails to provide.
There are weak, simple and short-termist motivations provided by secular Leftism, of course; for example, envy, hatred, hedonism and sex. These are amplified and channelled into political 'movements' by the mass media, state propaganda, laws and regulations. But clearly they are on the one hand socially destructive, and on the other hand clearly inadequate.
*
My initial interest in Christianity came from a consideration of motivations; and a recognition that the empirical evidence showed that when Christianity was removed from society as an effective source of primary motivation, nothing remotely adequate had replaced it.
And this had led to the characteristic malaise of this late modern period, increasingly evident since the mid-1960s - the collapse into sub-fertility in developed nations combined with staggering growth levels in some undeveloped countries, the active embrace of population replacement by Western elites, and endemic, compulsory dishonesty not only in public discourse (the mass media and all bureaucracies) - but also in science and medicine (those areas I best know from the inside)
The utter helplessness of the developed world stems from demotivation.
This helplessness is willed; it is not just a failure to tackle problems, but a demotivation so profound that it deliberately, systematically, mandatorily avoids even noticing the problems.
*
More than sufficient empirical data is available to show that Man must have a religion or else he will despair, give-up and eventually seek his own extinction (including the extinction of his society).
More than sufficient empirical data is available to show that secularism cannot provide motivation; so the viable choice is a choice between religions. Secular religions (like nationalism, communism, fascism, neo-paganism, New Age spirituality... so many have been thoroughly tried - and they have failed to provide a sustainable alternative - they are negative, demotivating, self-destructive and destructive of good.
*
It seems clear that religion is built-into Man in some sense; and if Man deletes religion then he deletes his motivation.
Does this prove that religion is true? Not exactly prove; but it is more compatible with the truth of religion (at some level, in some way) than it is compatible with the prevalent idea that religion is a pure delusion.
Because a delusion is (almost by definition) dysfunctional - that is how we know it is a delusion - and it is the absence of religion which is demotivating, which is clearly dysfunctional.
*
Of course it is facile for modern people to disbelieve the obvious and commonsensical, and to suppose that there will be some as-yet-undiscovered and non-obvious way of 'fixing' modernity that does not involve religion.
However, the both the present and future lies with religion.
The first decision is therefore whether to try and discover or make a new religion, or adopt an existing religion. It is easy to make a new religion, but very, very difficult to make a motivating new religion. Unless a religion can prove itself motivating enough to stop or reverse destructive trends under real world, modern conditions, then it is probably just a life-style option, rather than a real religion.
Having decided that viable options are restricted to actually existing religions; the next thing is to discover which religion is true, or rather which is true-est since all have considerable elements of truth.
Then it is a question of determining whether we can join, or at least actively support, that religion which we believe to be true/ true-est. In a world where all large institutions are strongly affected by secular Leftism, then this applies to religions and their adherents to some extent - and many or most religions are indeed utterly in-thrall to secular Leftism.
Nonetheless, Man must have a religion; therefore, in some way or another everyone needs to make a choice of religion to support and sustain; and then work-out how that support is t be implemented; in whatever way and to whatever extent they can manage, and which is most effective for them: effectiveness being measured (partly, but necessarily) in terms of motivation.
*
Modern man needs motivation in a way that did not apply to pre-modern societies where the majority of the population were negatively-motivated by the Malthusian lash of starvation, disease and violence; and where the small minority who were not, were either desperately trying to keep themselves above this maelstrom, or who were clinging to power against multiple rivals who would kill them if successful.
So modern man needs motivation - and that motivation must be strong enough and complex enough and long-termist enough to structure his life; and that is exactly what the secular Leftism which now dominates the developed world some completely and utterly fails to provide.
There are weak, simple and short-termist motivations provided by secular Leftism, of course; for example, envy, hatred, hedonism and sex. These are amplified and channelled into political 'movements' by the mass media, state propaganda, laws and regulations. But clearly they are on the one hand socially destructive, and on the other hand clearly inadequate.
*
My initial interest in Christianity came from a consideration of motivations; and a recognition that the empirical evidence showed that when Christianity was removed from society as an effective source of primary motivation, nothing remotely adequate had replaced it.
And this had led to the characteristic malaise of this late modern period, increasingly evident since the mid-1960s - the collapse into sub-fertility in developed nations combined with staggering growth levels in some undeveloped countries, the active embrace of population replacement by Western elites, and endemic, compulsory dishonesty not only in public discourse (the mass media and all bureaucracies) - but also in science and medicine (those areas I best know from the inside)
The utter helplessness of the developed world stems from demotivation.
This helplessness is willed; it is not just a failure to tackle problems, but a demotivation so profound that it deliberately, systematically, mandatorily avoids even noticing the problems.
*
More than sufficient empirical data is available to show that Man must have a religion or else he will despair, give-up and eventually seek his own extinction (including the extinction of his society).
More than sufficient empirical data is available to show that secularism cannot provide motivation; so the viable choice is a choice between religions. Secular religions (like nationalism, communism, fascism, neo-paganism, New Age spirituality... so many have been thoroughly tried - and they have failed to provide a sustainable alternative - they are negative, demotivating, self-destructive and destructive of good.
*
It seems clear that religion is built-into Man in some sense; and if Man deletes religion then he deletes his motivation.
Does this prove that religion is true? Not exactly prove; but it is more compatible with the truth of religion (at some level, in some way) than it is compatible with the prevalent idea that religion is a pure delusion.
Because a delusion is (almost by definition) dysfunctional - that is how we know it is a delusion - and it is the absence of religion which is demotivating, which is clearly dysfunctional.
*
Of course it is facile for modern people to disbelieve the obvious and commonsensical, and to suppose that there will be some as-yet-undiscovered and non-obvious way of 'fixing' modernity that does not involve religion.
However, the both the present and future lies with religion.
The first decision is therefore whether to try and discover or make a new religion, or adopt an existing religion. It is easy to make a new religion, but very, very difficult to make a motivating new religion. Unless a religion can prove itself motivating enough to stop or reverse destructive trends under real world, modern conditions, then it is probably just a life-style option, rather than a real religion.
Having decided that viable options are restricted to actually existing religions; the next thing is to discover which religion is true, or rather which is true-est since all have considerable elements of truth.
Then it is a question of determining whether we can join, or at least actively support, that religion which we believe to be true/ true-est. In a world where all large institutions are strongly affected by secular Leftism, then this applies to religions and their adherents to some extent - and many or most religions are indeed utterly in-thrall to secular Leftism.
Nonetheless, Man must have a religion; therefore, in some way or another everyone needs to make a choice of religion to support and sustain; and then work-out how that support is t be implemented; in whatever way and to whatever extent they can manage, and which is most effective for them: effectiveness being measured (partly, but necessarily) in terms of motivation.
*
Monday 29 June 2020
How the neglect/ suppression of the real nature of Communism and 'Fascism' led to our current (unrecognised) atheist totalitarianism
My high school education took place in the 1970s, and as a result I had a pretty solid understanding of Communism - and its evils. I knew about both the Russian and Chinese versions; and these were expounded alongside National Socialism in Germany as variations on the theme of totalitarianism - three ideologies with many similarities and lesser distinctions.
George Orwell has been by-far the most influential advocate of this analysis; but it was the Western norm up into the 1970s.
But in contrast, the next generations were taught very little indeed about Communism. The 'totalitarian' analytic category was not used. Instead both school and culture hammered home, again and again, an indictment of the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP; in English, National Socialist Workers Party of Germany) as the unique and greatest evil of world history.
However NSDAP is nearly-always abbreviated to Nazi, presumably to de-emphasise its roots in Socialism and its Communist-like pro-worker stance. And nowadays the NSDAP is treated as an "extreme Right Wing" party.
What was not made clear - even up to the 1970s - was that these examples (Russia, Germany, China) were all among the rare instances in human history of explicitly atheist states. Because this unfying atheism was seldom mentioned, and because the post-mid-sixties generation took secularism for granted; its significance was missed. (This particular neglect has - of course - continued.)
And because atheism as the core and unifying feature of the twentieth century totalitarianisms was missed; the seeds of our current falsehood were sown.
It used to be said (from the late 1940s and until the middle 1970s) that Communism and National Socialism were examples of extremes meeting. The idea was that Communism and National Socialism were opposites, Left and Right, but at the extremes Left and Right circle around and join-up.
This is a devastating error. In fact, Communist and Nazi are merely variations on the same basic ideology, which is Leftism.
National Socialism is merely Communism moderated by Nationalism (i.e. Nazis were moderate Communists); because in the middle twentieth century Communism was ideologically inter-nationalist (as with their theme song).
More specifically, National Socialism (and indeed, also the earlier Italian Fascism under Mussolini, and the later Falangist-atheist/ Roman Catholic alliance of Franco in Spain) was a reaction-against the internationalism and socially-destructive extremity of Communism.
Because after the Russian Revolution there was a widespread (and apparently justified) fear that Communism would spread across Europe. National Socialism in Germany was a Socialist Workers party, exactly the same as Communism (and appealing to a similar proletarian base); but was nationalist and patriotic, which enabled the different classes to work together under the revolutionary new arragements.
Rather than the attempt being made, as in the USSR, to exterminate the bourgeoisie and the ex-aristocrats; instead the NSDAP imposed a new ruling class of 'lower class' party members (mostly derived from the non-gentry, 'blue-collar' middle class, in practice: e.g. Hitler had been a Non-Commissioned Officer). However, (unlike Communism) although aristocratic titles and privileges were abolished; the ex-Junker nobility, Professors, writers and artists, clerks and schoolteachers etc were all welcome to join the national ('workers') effort; so long as they endorsed the new ideology. Apparently, most of them accepted.
Thus National Socialism was far more effective and efficient than 'pure'/ extreme Communism, since it succeeded in mobilizing a far greater proportion of the population - across all classes; because it repudiated some of the insane inversions of Communism, and also because the NSDAP replaced religion with an intense, supernaturalistic, ritually and symbolically-supported cult of The Fuhrer.
The hatred of Communists for Nazis is therefore the hatred of the ideological purist for the moderate pragmatist. On the other side; the hostility of Nazis to Communism was itself the springboard of their success with both the German workers and the ruling class.
The traditional German nobility and gentry correctly perceived that (in the short/medium-term, anyway) - when the range of possible choice had been reduced to Nazi or Communist, they would be much better-off under the NSDAP than Communism.
Anyway; it can be seen that the recent global totalitarian coup was made possible by the decades of neglect and disinformation concerning Communism, and the misrepresentation of Nazis as 'extreme Right Wing' -- rather than an understanding of the nature of generic atheist totalitarianism that encompasses both.
(Part of this was also a false representation of the essence of the Nazi system as being anti-semitism; whereas this was mostly a peculiarity of Hitler himself, and not-at-all intrinsic to the NSDAP system of government.)
Furthermore, the lack of of comprehension concerning the atheist roots of totalitarianism has affected the opposition to mainstream post-middle-1960s New Leftism - because there is a false belief in 'a non-religious Right'.
Whereas there never has been, and never can be, a non-religious Right; and all purported examples of non-religious Right are actually merely (more or less) moderate forms of Leftism; just like the NSDAP.
All forms of political atheism are 1. Leftist, and 2. Totalitarian. The only thing which disguises this is social inertia; and as older (religious-reared) generations die-out, all possible secular societies will move Left towards the extreme of psychotic Communism.
Thus, since the entire West (and developed nations) have been atheist for some decades - all-without-exception are now (and for the past few months) extreme Leftist and under totalitarian rule.
The only genuine opposition to totalitarianism is therefore from those who wish to put religion at the centre of the political system: those who regard religion as more important than politics (or anything else).
And the only legitimate dispute among those who oppose Leftism is: Which Religion?
George Orwell has been by-far the most influential advocate of this analysis; but it was the Western norm up into the 1970s.
But in contrast, the next generations were taught very little indeed about Communism. The 'totalitarian' analytic category was not used. Instead both school and culture hammered home, again and again, an indictment of the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP; in English, National Socialist Workers Party of Germany) as the unique and greatest evil of world history.
However NSDAP is nearly-always abbreviated to Nazi, presumably to de-emphasise its roots in Socialism and its Communist-like pro-worker stance. And nowadays the NSDAP is treated as an "extreme Right Wing" party.
What was not made clear - even up to the 1970s - was that these examples (Russia, Germany, China) were all among the rare instances in human history of explicitly atheist states. Because this unfying atheism was seldom mentioned, and because the post-mid-sixties generation took secularism for granted; its significance was missed. (This particular neglect has - of course - continued.)
And because atheism as the core and unifying feature of the twentieth century totalitarianisms was missed; the seeds of our current falsehood were sown.
It used to be said (from the late 1940s and until the middle 1970s) that Communism and National Socialism were examples of extremes meeting. The idea was that Communism and National Socialism were opposites, Left and Right, but at the extremes Left and Right circle around and join-up.
This is a devastating error. In fact, Communist and Nazi are merely variations on the same basic ideology, which is Leftism.
National Socialism is merely Communism moderated by Nationalism (i.e. Nazis were moderate Communists); because in the middle twentieth century Communism was ideologically inter-nationalist (as with their theme song).
More specifically, National Socialism (and indeed, also the earlier Italian Fascism under Mussolini, and the later Falangist-atheist/ Roman Catholic alliance of Franco in Spain) was a reaction-against the internationalism and socially-destructive extremity of Communism.
Because after the Russian Revolution there was a widespread (and apparently justified) fear that Communism would spread across Europe. National Socialism in Germany was a Socialist Workers party, exactly the same as Communism (and appealing to a similar proletarian base); but was nationalist and patriotic, which enabled the different classes to work together under the revolutionary new arragements.
Rather than the attempt being made, as in the USSR, to exterminate the bourgeoisie and the ex-aristocrats; instead the NSDAP imposed a new ruling class of 'lower class' party members (mostly derived from the non-gentry, 'blue-collar' middle class, in practice: e.g. Hitler had been a Non-Commissioned Officer). However, (unlike Communism) although aristocratic titles and privileges were abolished; the ex-Junker nobility, Professors, writers and artists, clerks and schoolteachers etc were all welcome to join the national ('workers') effort; so long as they endorsed the new ideology. Apparently, most of them accepted.
Thus National Socialism was far more effective and efficient than 'pure'/ extreme Communism, since it succeeded in mobilizing a far greater proportion of the population - across all classes; because it repudiated some of the insane inversions of Communism, and also because the NSDAP replaced religion with an intense, supernaturalistic, ritually and symbolically-supported cult of The Fuhrer.
The hatred of Communists for Nazis is therefore the hatred of the ideological purist for the moderate pragmatist. On the other side; the hostility of Nazis to Communism was itself the springboard of their success with both the German workers and the ruling class.
The traditional German nobility and gentry correctly perceived that (in the short/medium-term, anyway) - when the range of possible choice had been reduced to Nazi or Communist, they would be much better-off under the NSDAP than Communism.
Anyway; it can be seen that the recent global totalitarian coup was made possible by the decades of neglect and disinformation concerning Communism, and the misrepresentation of Nazis as 'extreme Right Wing' -- rather than an understanding of the nature of generic atheist totalitarianism that encompasses both.
(Part of this was also a false representation of the essence of the Nazi system as being anti-semitism; whereas this was mostly a peculiarity of Hitler himself, and not-at-all intrinsic to the NSDAP system of government.)
Furthermore, the lack of of comprehension concerning the atheist roots of totalitarianism has affected the opposition to mainstream post-middle-1960s New Leftism - because there is a false belief in 'a non-religious Right'.
Whereas there never has been, and never can be, a non-religious Right; and all purported examples of non-religious Right are actually merely (more or less) moderate forms of Leftism; just like the NSDAP.
All forms of political atheism are 1. Leftist, and 2. Totalitarian. The only thing which disguises this is social inertia; and as older (religious-reared) generations die-out, all possible secular societies will move Left towards the extreme of psychotic Communism.
Thus, since the entire West (and developed nations) have been atheist for some decades - all-without-exception are now (and for the past few months) extreme Leftist and under totalitarian rule.
The only genuine opposition to totalitarianism is therefore from those who wish to put religion at the centre of the political system: those who regard religion as more important than politics (or anything else).
And the only legitimate dispute among those who oppose Leftism is: Which Religion?
Tuesday 18 January 2011
Which was/ is worst? Nazism or Communism?
*
The correct answer is Communism. And this is a matter of fact.
But the chances are you may think that you disagree, or regard them as equally bad, or that it is too close to call.
However, if so, you are mistaken, and for one of two reasons:
1. Most likely, almost certainly, you do not know enough about Communism. Even I, who am no friend to Communism, continue to be surprised by what I did not know about the evils of the USSR. It has only been during the past year I have begun to appreciate this, and even in the past week some major new horrors have come to my attention. But don't take my word for it, find out for yourself.
2. The Texas Sharpshooter fallacy
I described the TSF here: http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2010/06/measuring-human-capability-moonshot.html
The way it work in this instance is that Nazism is defined as the ultimate evil - then other evils are measured according to how closely they resemble Nazism. Naturally, when this is done to Communism, it seems less evil than Nazism.
*
The relationship between ideologies (over the past couple of thousand years in the West) is as follows:
1. First came Christianity: primary sin = pride; primary virtue = love (i.e. the type of love which is agape/ charity). These defined ultimately in terms of spirituality, transcendentals, other worldly factors.
2. With leftist/ progressive atheism (e.g. Communism) the primary sin became selfishness; the primary virtue = unselfishness (a.k.a. altruism). These being defined in this worldly and materialistic terms - as 'worldly goods' ('goods' including all valued materials factors such as money and also socially-defined factors such as status).
Unselfishness is operationalized as altruism on behalf of others - e.g. other classes, other races, other sex, animals, climate, the planet...
3. Rightist/ reactionary atheism (of which Nazism is a type) reacts against the self-hatred and suicidal effects of leftist altruism on behalf of others, by reversing the morality of unselfishness to regard this-worldly materialist selfishness (under some communitarian description) as a virtue rather than the primary sin.
(In this sense, Nietzsche was indeed the philosopher of Nazism.)
Selfishness is operationalized by right-wing atheism as distributing worldly goods to one's own class, nation, empire, race, sex or whatever.
To be paradoxical about it, Nazism is aggressive altruism on behalf of oneself!
*
Both Communism and Nazism are relativistic/ nihilistic - they do not aim at a specific state of affairs, but a permanent revolution in a particular direction - secular leftists aim at continually increasing altruism to others, secular rightists aim at continually increasing selfishness.
Hence atheist ideologies of both right and left are capable of unrestrained evil, so their regimes are the worst in human history - but atheist leftism is capable of attracting vastly more widespread and sustained support and idealistic zeal by its pseudo-morality of un-selfishness.
Hence Communism has spread almost everywhere and accomplished (and is accomplishing) vastly more evil than Nazism - which was a narrow and unsustainable product of unique circumstances.
*
So - Christianity promotes transcendental love, Communism promotes worldly unselfishness on behalf of others, Fascism promotes worldly selfishness.
Leftists and progressives therefore regard Communism as intrinsically superior to Nazism - in a way that takes no account of evidence, since they see Commuinism as having the highest possible human aspirations - albeit they are usually corrupted.
Leftists regard Nazism (and other forms of secular rightism) as intrinsically evil because its advocates openly promote their own interests: its primary morality is selfishness. Since this is the exact opposite of leftism - indeed, an exact inversion of leftist morality - it is the ultimate evil.
*
(Note: Leftists also regard supernaturalist Christianity as intrinsically evil because it promotes non-worldly goods, which do not exist; thereby ignoring or neglecting the moral centrality of enforcing the altruistic distribution of worldly goods.
But, for leftists, Christianity is not the ultimate evil, since it is not the exact opposite of leftism. Rather, orthodox Christianity is seen as a hypocritical mask for secular rightism - which is seen as primary. Christians are therefore seen as promoters of selfishness who cleverly disguise it under a cover of nonsensical transcendental aspirations.
Explicit, open, un-ashamed secular rightism is the primary enemy.
So, Communists fear Nazis - because they understand and respect them, but despise Christians - who are seen as fools and cowards.
Communists want to fight real Nazis (if they think they can win), but want to exterminate Christians (as mere vermin.)
*
So, for leftists, the difference between the mainstream secular right and Nazis is merely that Nazism is more honest and brave: the secular right with the gloves-off. Mainstream rightists are seens as nothing more-than - or other-than - feeble Nazis.)
*
The correct answer is Communism. And this is a matter of fact.
But the chances are you may think that you disagree, or regard them as equally bad, or that it is too close to call.
However, if so, you are mistaken, and for one of two reasons:
1. Most likely, almost certainly, you do not know enough about Communism. Even I, who am no friend to Communism, continue to be surprised by what I did not know about the evils of the USSR. It has only been during the past year I have begun to appreciate this, and even in the past week some major new horrors have come to my attention. But don't take my word for it, find out for yourself.
2. The Texas Sharpshooter fallacy
I described the TSF here: http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2010/06/measuring-human-capability-moonshot.html
The way it work in this instance is that Nazism is defined as the ultimate evil - then other evils are measured according to how closely they resemble Nazism. Naturally, when this is done to Communism, it seems less evil than Nazism.
*
The relationship between ideologies (over the past couple of thousand years in the West) is as follows:
1. First came Christianity: primary sin = pride; primary virtue = love (i.e. the type of love which is agape/ charity). These defined ultimately in terms of spirituality, transcendentals, other worldly factors.
2. With leftist/ progressive atheism (e.g. Communism) the primary sin became selfishness; the primary virtue = unselfishness (a.k.a. altruism). These being defined in this worldly and materialistic terms - as 'worldly goods' ('goods' including all valued materials factors such as money and also socially-defined factors such as status).
Unselfishness is operationalized as altruism on behalf of others - e.g. other classes, other races, other sex, animals, climate, the planet...
3. Rightist/ reactionary atheism (of which Nazism is a type) reacts against the self-hatred and suicidal effects of leftist altruism on behalf of others, by reversing the morality of unselfishness to regard this-worldly materialist selfishness (under some communitarian description) as a virtue rather than the primary sin.
(In this sense, Nietzsche was indeed the philosopher of Nazism.)
Selfishness is operationalized by right-wing atheism as distributing worldly goods to one's own class, nation, empire, race, sex or whatever.
To be paradoxical about it, Nazism is aggressive altruism on behalf of oneself!
*
Both Communism and Nazism are relativistic/ nihilistic - they do not aim at a specific state of affairs, but a permanent revolution in a particular direction - secular leftists aim at continually increasing altruism to others, secular rightists aim at continually increasing selfishness.
Hence atheist ideologies of both right and left are capable of unrestrained evil, so their regimes are the worst in human history - but atheist leftism is capable of attracting vastly more widespread and sustained support and idealistic zeal by its pseudo-morality of un-selfishness.
Hence Communism has spread almost everywhere and accomplished (and is accomplishing) vastly more evil than Nazism - which was a narrow and unsustainable product of unique circumstances.
*
So - Christianity promotes transcendental love, Communism promotes worldly unselfishness on behalf of others, Fascism promotes worldly selfishness.
Leftists and progressives therefore regard Communism as intrinsically superior to Nazism - in a way that takes no account of evidence, since they see Commuinism as having the highest possible human aspirations - albeit they are usually corrupted.
Leftists regard Nazism (and other forms of secular rightism) as intrinsically evil because its advocates openly promote their own interests: its primary morality is selfishness. Since this is the exact opposite of leftism - indeed, an exact inversion of leftist morality - it is the ultimate evil.
*
(Note: Leftists also regard supernaturalist Christianity as intrinsically evil because it promotes non-worldly goods, which do not exist; thereby ignoring or neglecting the moral centrality of enforcing the altruistic distribution of worldly goods.
But, for leftists, Christianity is not the ultimate evil, since it is not the exact opposite of leftism. Rather, orthodox Christianity is seen as a hypocritical mask for secular rightism - which is seen as primary. Christians are therefore seen as promoters of selfishness who cleverly disguise it under a cover of nonsensical transcendental aspirations.
Explicit, open, un-ashamed secular rightism is the primary enemy.
So, Communists fear Nazis - because they understand and respect them, but despise Christians - who are seen as fools and cowards.
Communists want to fight real Nazis (if they think they can win), but want to exterminate Christians (as mere vermin.)
*
So, for leftists, the difference between the mainstream secular right and Nazis is merely that Nazism is more honest and brave: the secular right with the gloves-off. Mainstream rightists are seens as nothing more-than - or other-than - feeble Nazis.)
*
Thursday 14 March 2019
Who is is worse - Communists or Nazis?
There is an answer, and the correct answer is Communists.
But the chances are you may think that you disagree, or regard them as equally bad, or that it is too close to call.
However, if so, you are mistaken, and for one of two reasons:
1. Most likely, almost certainly, you do not know enough about Communism. Even I, who am no friend to Communism, continue to be surprised by what I did not know about the evils of the USSR. It has only been during the past year* I have begun to appreciate this, and even in the past week some major new horrors have come to my attention. But don't take my word for it, find out for yourself.
2. The Texas Sharpshooter fallacy
I described the TSF here: http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2010/06/measuring-human-capability-moonshot.html
The way it work in this instance is that Nazism is defined as the ultimate evil - then other evils are measured according to how closely they resemble Nazism. Naturally, when this is done to Communism, it seems less evil than Nazism.
The relationship between ideologies (over the past couple of thousand years in the West) is as follows:
1. First came Christianity: primary sin = pride; primary virtue = love (i.e. the type of love which is agape/ charity). These defined ultimately in terms of spirituality, transcendentals, other worldly factors.
2. With leftist/ progressive atheism (e.g. Communism) the primary sin became selfishness; the primary virtue = unselfishness (a.k.a. altruism). These being defined in this worldly and materialistic terms - as 'worldly goods' ('goods' including all valued materials factors such as money and also socially-defined factors such as status).
Unselfishness is operationalized as altruism on behalf of others - e.g. other classes, other races, other sex, animals, climate, the planet...
3. Rightist/ reactionary atheism (of which Nazism is a type) reacts against the self-hatred and suicidal effects of leftist altruism on behalf of others, by reversing the morality of unselfishness to regard this-worldly materialist selfishness (under some communitarian description) as a virtue rather than the primary sin.
(In this sense, Nietzsche was indeed the philosopher of Nazism.)
Selfishness is operationalized by right-wing atheism as distributing worldly goods to one's own class, nation, empire, race, sex or whatever.
To be paradoxical about it, Nazism is aggressive altruism on behalf of oneself!
Both Communism and Nazism are relativistic/ nihilistic - they do not aim at a specific state of affairs, but a permanent revolution in a particular direction - secular leftists aim at continually increasing altruism to others, secular rightists aim at continually increasing selfishness.
Hence atheist ideologies of both right and left are capable of unrestrained evil, so their regimes are the worst in human history - but atheist leftism is capable of attracting vastly more widespread and sustained support and idealistic zeal by its pseudo-morality of un-selfishness.
Hence Communism has spread almost everywhere and accomplished (and is accomplishing) vastly more evil than Nazism - which was a narrow and unsustainable product of unique circumstances.
So - Christianity promotes transcendental love, Communism promotes worldly unselfishness on behalf of others, Fascism promotes worldly selfishness.
Leftists and progressives therefore regard Communism as intrinsically superior to Nazism - in a way that takes no account of evidence, since they see Communism as having the highest possible human aspirations - albeit they are usually corrupted.
Leftists regard Nazism (and other forms of secular rightism) as intrinsically evil because its advocates openly promote their own interests: its primary morality is selfishness. Since this is the exact opposite of leftism - indeed, an exact inversion of leftist morality - it is the ultimate evil.
**
Leftists also regard supernaturalist Christianity as intrinsically evil because it promotes non-worldly goods, which do not exist; thereby ignoring or neglecting the moral centrality of enforcing the altruistic distribution of worldly goods.
But, for leftists, Christianity is not the ultimate evil, since it is not the exact opposite of leftism. Rather, orthodox Christianity is seen as a hypocritical mask for secular rightism - which is seen as primary. Christians are therefore seen as promoters of selfishness who cleverly disguise it under a cover of nonsensical transcendental aspirations.
Explicit, open, un-ashamed secular rightism is the primary enemy.
So, Communists fear Nazis - because they understand and respect them, but despise Christians - who are seen as fools and cowards.
Communists want to fight real Nazis (if they think they can win), but want to exterminate Christians (as mere vermin.)
So, for leftists, the difference between the mainstream secular right and Nazis is merely that Nazism is more honest and brave: the secular right with the gloves-off. Mainstream rightists are seen as nothing more-than - or other-than - feeble Nazis.
**
Note added: The inferiority of Soviet Communism to German National Socialism can be seen in their military.
Perhaps it is unfair to compare any other nation with Germany in terms of military prowess - but the German army (and most of the people) apparently loved their leaders and fought for them with absolutely remarkable tenacity and effectiveness until utterly defeated. (The way in which the Allied invasion was held-up in Italy for a year and a half from autumn 1943 was evidence of the Germans' man-for-man supremacy.)
By contrast, from the beginning of the Bolshevik revolution, the government waged permanent war upon its own nation. In WWII the Soviet officers *drove* their cowed troops into battle from behind - guns aimed at their own men. On the Eastern Front I have read that the Russians lost ten men for every German killed.
*The above is reposted from this blog in 2011. I stumbled across it today, and thought it still interesting, and increasingly topical - as (superficially repackaged) communism is making a mainstream comeback.
But the chances are you may think that you disagree, or regard them as equally bad, or that it is too close to call.
However, if so, you are mistaken, and for one of two reasons:
1. Most likely, almost certainly, you do not know enough about Communism. Even I, who am no friend to Communism, continue to be surprised by what I did not know about the evils of the USSR. It has only been during the past year* I have begun to appreciate this, and even in the past week some major new horrors have come to my attention. But don't take my word for it, find out for yourself.
2. The Texas Sharpshooter fallacy
I described the TSF here: http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2010/06/measuring-human-capability-moonshot.html
The way it work in this instance is that Nazism is defined as the ultimate evil - then other evils are measured according to how closely they resemble Nazism. Naturally, when this is done to Communism, it seems less evil than Nazism.
The relationship between ideologies (over the past couple of thousand years in the West) is as follows:
1. First came Christianity: primary sin = pride; primary virtue = love (i.e. the type of love which is agape/ charity). These defined ultimately in terms of spirituality, transcendentals, other worldly factors.
2. With leftist/ progressive atheism (e.g. Communism) the primary sin became selfishness; the primary virtue = unselfishness (a.k.a. altruism). These being defined in this worldly and materialistic terms - as 'worldly goods' ('goods' including all valued materials factors such as money and also socially-defined factors such as status).
Unselfishness is operationalized as altruism on behalf of others - e.g. other classes, other races, other sex, animals, climate, the planet...
3. Rightist/ reactionary atheism (of which Nazism is a type) reacts against the self-hatred and suicidal effects of leftist altruism on behalf of others, by reversing the morality of unselfishness to regard this-worldly materialist selfishness (under some communitarian description) as a virtue rather than the primary sin.
(In this sense, Nietzsche was indeed the philosopher of Nazism.)
Selfishness is operationalized by right-wing atheism as distributing worldly goods to one's own class, nation, empire, race, sex or whatever.
To be paradoxical about it, Nazism is aggressive altruism on behalf of oneself!
Both Communism and Nazism are relativistic/ nihilistic - they do not aim at a specific state of affairs, but a permanent revolution in a particular direction - secular leftists aim at continually increasing altruism to others, secular rightists aim at continually increasing selfishness.
Hence atheist ideologies of both right and left are capable of unrestrained evil, so their regimes are the worst in human history - but atheist leftism is capable of attracting vastly more widespread and sustained support and idealistic zeal by its pseudo-morality of un-selfishness.
Hence Communism has spread almost everywhere and accomplished (and is accomplishing) vastly more evil than Nazism - which was a narrow and unsustainable product of unique circumstances.
So - Christianity promotes transcendental love, Communism promotes worldly unselfishness on behalf of others, Fascism promotes worldly selfishness.
Leftists and progressives therefore regard Communism as intrinsically superior to Nazism - in a way that takes no account of evidence, since they see Communism as having the highest possible human aspirations - albeit they are usually corrupted.
Leftists regard Nazism (and other forms of secular rightism) as intrinsically evil because its advocates openly promote their own interests: its primary morality is selfishness. Since this is the exact opposite of leftism - indeed, an exact inversion of leftist morality - it is the ultimate evil.
**
Leftists also regard supernaturalist Christianity as intrinsically evil because it promotes non-worldly goods, which do not exist; thereby ignoring or neglecting the moral centrality of enforcing the altruistic distribution of worldly goods.
But, for leftists, Christianity is not the ultimate evil, since it is not the exact opposite of leftism. Rather, orthodox Christianity is seen as a hypocritical mask for secular rightism - which is seen as primary. Christians are therefore seen as promoters of selfishness who cleverly disguise it under a cover of nonsensical transcendental aspirations.
Explicit, open, un-ashamed secular rightism is the primary enemy.
So, Communists fear Nazis - because they understand and respect them, but despise Christians - who are seen as fools and cowards.
Communists want to fight real Nazis (if they think they can win), but want to exterminate Christians (as mere vermin.)
So, for leftists, the difference between the mainstream secular right and Nazis is merely that Nazism is more honest and brave: the secular right with the gloves-off. Mainstream rightists are seen as nothing more-than - or other-than - feeble Nazis.
**
Note added: The inferiority of Soviet Communism to German National Socialism can be seen in their military.
Perhaps it is unfair to compare any other nation with Germany in terms of military prowess - but the German army (and most of the people) apparently loved their leaders and fought for them with absolutely remarkable tenacity and effectiveness until utterly defeated. (The way in which the Allied invasion was held-up in Italy for a year and a half from autumn 1943 was evidence of the Germans' man-for-man supremacy.)
By contrast, from the beginning of the Bolshevik revolution, the government waged permanent war upon its own nation. In WWII the Soviet officers *drove* their cowed troops into battle from behind - guns aimed at their own men. On the Eastern Front I have read that the Russians lost ten men for every German killed.
*The above is reposted from this blog in 2011. I stumbled across it today, and thought it still interesting, and increasingly topical - as (superficially repackaged) communism is making a mainstream comeback.
Wednesday 6 July 2011
A simple (and simplistic!) classification of the political Right
*
I have never presented a written-out and formal taxonomy of the Right so far - but reflecting on Bonald's more complex taxonomy which I posted two days ago makes me realise I implicitly use a simpler (and more simplistic) threefold taxonomy as follows:
1. 'Mainstream' (or pseudo) Right (which is actually part of the Left)
2. 'Fascist'/ commonsense Right - which is the secular anti-Left, a reaction against the Left
3. the Religious Right - which is pre-Left: it is what the Left was/ is reacting against.
*
So the chronological order, and causal sequence, is as follows:
First there was the Religious Right, and nothing else
Secondly there was the Left which was a reaction against the Religious Right, therefore Leftism = the anti-Religious Right (and includes the pseudo-Right, such as mainstream Conservatives and Republicans, and libertarianism).
NB: The Left is intrinsically and necessarily anti-Religious, although secularization of the Left was gradual, and remains incomplete except among the elite politically correct intellectuals. Insofar as a person or institution is Leftist, by that much they are anti-Religious (which is compatible with a relatively high level of religiousness, nonetheless; especially in a society where the average level of religiousness is low).
Thirdly there was Fascism which is Secular Commonsense anti-Leftism, therefore Fascism = the Non-Religious anti-Left.
*
And that's it!
*
I have never presented a written-out and formal taxonomy of the Right so far - but reflecting on Bonald's more complex taxonomy which I posted two days ago makes me realise I implicitly use a simpler (and more simplistic) threefold taxonomy as follows:
1. 'Mainstream' (or pseudo) Right (which is actually part of the Left)
2. 'Fascist'/ commonsense Right - which is the secular anti-Left, a reaction against the Left
3. the Religious Right - which is pre-Left: it is what the Left was/ is reacting against.
*
So the chronological order, and causal sequence, is as follows:
First there was the Religious Right, and nothing else
Secondly there was the Left which was a reaction against the Religious Right, therefore Leftism = the anti-Religious Right (and includes the pseudo-Right, such as mainstream Conservatives and Republicans, and libertarianism).
NB: The Left is intrinsically and necessarily anti-Religious, although secularization of the Left was gradual, and remains incomplete except among the elite politically correct intellectuals. Insofar as a person or institution is Leftist, by that much they are anti-Religious (which is compatible with a relatively high level of religiousness, nonetheless; especially in a society where the average level of religiousness is low).
Thirdly there was Fascism which is Secular Commonsense anti-Leftism, therefore Fascism = the Non-Religious anti-Left.
*
And that's it!
*
Wednesday 7 December 2016
Alt-Right needs to get spiritual, or become what its enemies call it (or else die)
Alt-Right has nowhere to go but fascism, unless it puts spiritual values at the front and heart of the program.
I say spiritual values, because I don't see it as plausible that there can be any fully-Christian mass movement from where we are now - which is a situation in which public discourse does not admit the objective reality of anything at all outside the material realm - everything else is psychological, subjective, labile, and manipulable.
Thus a secular Alt-Right will inevitably be simply a different version of Leftism; a Leftism which has different materialist priorities, and panders to a different set of subjective emotions as a means to that end.
(Indeed, my impression is that most of the Alt-Right are exceptionally materialist, positivist, anti-altruistic and reductionist in their outlook - taking a positive delight in simplification of politics to their own power, security and well-being -- only to be shared, grudgingly, with those who directly assist this agenda.)
But materialism is a feeble, ineffectual motivator for Men. The most powerful motivator is an ideal; followed by fear and hatred - and, lacking any effective motivator and uniter, a secular Alt-Right will be forced to manufacture cohesion by encouraging fear and hatred as an urgent priority to unify-around.
(I am assuming that nationalism was merely a temporary, post-religious phase - and will not work. If nationalism was going to work, it would long since have done so.)
Or else the Alt-Right will simply die - lacking any local and immediate reason for staying alive, The leaders will be bought-off or scared-off.
(As seems already to be happening - and there is a strong track record of secular Rightists selling-out at the first opportunity - And after all, why not? Expediency is their bottom-line.)
Nobody can compel a spiritual awakening - especially among ingrained and self-satisfied arch-Skeptics such as abound among the Alt-Right. I can only hope that they will leave-off the mass media addiction, and allow themselves to open-out and incrementally become aware of the wider world of reality beyond the immediacy of nuts and bolts and prideful self-seeking.
I say spiritual values, because I don't see it as plausible that there can be any fully-Christian mass movement from where we are now - which is a situation in which public discourse does not admit the objective reality of anything at all outside the material realm - everything else is psychological, subjective, labile, and manipulable.
Thus a secular Alt-Right will inevitably be simply a different version of Leftism; a Leftism which has different materialist priorities, and panders to a different set of subjective emotions as a means to that end.
(Indeed, my impression is that most of the Alt-Right are exceptionally materialist, positivist, anti-altruistic and reductionist in their outlook - taking a positive delight in simplification of politics to their own power, security and well-being -- only to be shared, grudgingly, with those who directly assist this agenda.)
But materialism is a feeble, ineffectual motivator for Men. The most powerful motivator is an ideal; followed by fear and hatred - and, lacking any effective motivator and uniter, a secular Alt-Right will be forced to manufacture cohesion by encouraging fear and hatred as an urgent priority to unify-around.
(I am assuming that nationalism was merely a temporary, post-religious phase - and will not work. If nationalism was going to work, it would long since have done so.)
Or else the Alt-Right will simply die - lacking any local and immediate reason for staying alive, The leaders will be bought-off or scared-off.
(As seems already to be happening - and there is a strong track record of secular Rightists selling-out at the first opportunity - And after all, why not? Expediency is their bottom-line.)
Nobody can compel a spiritual awakening - especially among ingrained and self-satisfied arch-Skeptics such as abound among the Alt-Right. I can only hope that they will leave-off the mass media addiction, and allow themselves to open-out and incrementally become aware of the wider world of reality beyond the immediacy of nuts and bolts and prideful self-seeking.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)