” The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State. The conception of the Liberal State is not that of a directing force, guiding the play and development, both material and spiritual, of a collective body, but merely a force limited to the function of recording results: on the other hand, the Fascist State is itself conscious and has itself a will and a personality — thus it may be called the “ethic” State….
…The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone….” (source)
Dwight’s Mussolini speech.
Fascism is marked by the merger of the private sector and the state, as well as a fanatical nationalism or imperialism. Our modern era is turning back to this from democracy as Spengler prophesied, yet in the form of a Third Way, and not an overt caesarism. Alasdair MacIntyre’s work on communitarianism is also interesting, given that his philosophy of virtue has many good points, but collectivism is fraught with difficulties, not the least of which is the dismal track of central planned economies, such as the Soviet Union. MacIntyre, in my opinion, is a much better philosopher, particularly in his work Whose Justice, Which Rationality? and on linguistic narratives. This is relevant, insofar as modern trendy libertarians often pop up and lecture me on basics I came to ten years ago, and moved out of–particularly the fact that so-called libertarianism, or classical liberalism, is an Enlightenment philosophy that is itself wrought with problems and difficulties. The purpose of this article, however, is not to devolve into Robert Nozick or Ron Paul. The point here is that delving into racial studies and geo-political/civilization studies has emerged for me as a crucial arena which is hidden from most people. Francis Parker Yockey was invaluable in this regard, though I needn’t mention that I obviously disagree with much of the book, particularly his national socialism and fascism. What is relevant is that the book is one of the best introductions to geo-politics one could envision. Prophetic as well, it describes the track of the twentieth century, based on his perspicacity as a cultured imperialist. In a way, it is like a technical Aeneid, which was a Roman lyrical version of geo-political lessons.
The reason I continue to tout the work after disagreeing with much of it was its ability to make clear that statecraft and geo-politics do not operate on ideals and petty moralisms. The masses, however, especially in the modern world, suppose that democracy is a real thing and that their “vote” matters, despite voter fraud, electronic voting machines and mass stupidity. And it should be noted that this was also an Enlightenment ideal–that of voting for, and electing leaders. Yockey’s Imperium accurately notes that the Enlightenment was dead in his day, but that for the populace to catch up, it would take decades. His foresight here was correct, inasmuch as the continued existence of the American republican system is, in the mind of common Americans, a real entity. The reality is quite the opposite: the American ideal of government by the people has never existed, aside from possibly the early colonies. Certainly no superstate run by international corporations and banks that are larger than many nations’ GDPs can honestly still be viewed as an Enlightenment progeny.
The reality is, the Enlightenment was both a success for progress in some regards, and a failure in others. For one, it failed to understand the human nature cannot be universalized cross-racially. The era was somewhat inconsistent in this regard, since slaveholders existed simultaneously with so-called liberals that touted the indefectibility of human reason. No doubt reason is an invaluable tool, but it is not had universally. The British adopted eugenics and population control, as well as Darwinism within this strand of thought with Malthus, Galton, Huxley, and others, which then gave way to Fabian socialism and Bertrand Russell which is the height of what Rene Guenon calls the “reign of quantity.” Mankind is conceived of as a collective entity subject to numerical ratiocination and pure scientism. But it is a scientism that is merely a return to gnosticism and classical barbarism in many respects. Sociology, with August Comte and the Comte de St. Simon would take French Revolutionary and Illuminist thought into the collectivist realm, and combine it with the “reign of quantity” to produce a rationalized (in the Weberian sense), abstract absolutist state which, through panoptic surveillance, can constantly spy on the Orwellian animal farm. Numericalized and bestialized mankind has now replaced the divine, Promethean idea that the Enlightenment originally birthed.
Yockey, following Spengler’s lead, was correct in his analyses of these areas, as well as the faulty reductionism in Freudianism, Marxism and Darwinism. All three attempt to collectivize man into a single conceptual notion for the purpose of efficient production. There is sexual man, homo economicus and animal man. All other forms and relations are excluded, and this relates back to the point of educational reductionism and discreet fragmentation mentioned above, where no one discipline has any relation to any other. In an age of homo economicus, it is evident that economics is what dominates man due to number being demythologized from a sephirotic emanation to a nominalistic linguistic token. The modern era is one of the dominance of techne, as Ratzinger correctly explains in Introduction to Christianity, where man’s ideals and modus operandi are all geared towards the ever-increasing efficiency of technological processes; a kind of mechanical Kali-yuga.
Thus America comes into being as a nation supposedly conceived rationally, as if nations can be created propositionally. In this regard, the naive, Enlightenment rationalism evident in the founders’ minds was somewhat of a mixed notion in that the platitudes about man’s inmate rights and dignity was proposed with no real philosophical basis other than Protestantism and natural laws, which are faulty pillars if ever there were any. It is like the Calvinist dogma of the invisible church, where the “true” church of the elect is propositional, and not the same as the “visible” church that actually is, within history. In short the error in all these positions, be it Enlightenment rationalism, Laissez-faire free market capitalism, classical liberalism, American exceptionalism and expansionism, democracy, liberalism, communism, socialism, statism, and all the assorted “isms” of the past three hundred years, is their idealization. I don’t mean ideal in the sense that no one can have ideal beliefs, but the notion of constructing a rational system that can then be pasted onto reality, as if the world itself was a tabula rasa. Indeed, it is itself the Enlightenment which conceived of man as a tabula rasa to be environmentally steered in whatever direction the state or social engineer desired. Christianity itself treats man and the world in this same way, as if it were a blank slate that a rationally adopted system can magically be made to conform to.
But the discovery of DNA in 20th century laid all that to rest, as well as all positions based on egalitarianism. Unfortunately, the libertarians for the most part haven’t figured this out, and still operate on the notion that men are all the same. Men are not all the same, and certainly race effects economics, since economic performance will obviously correlate to IQ, social standing, talents, abilities, etc., which are directly connected to DNA and genetics. Where the free market was right was in realizing the incredible potential that could be released in societies where individual freedoms and rights are guarded by the rule of law. It is important to not bifurcate on America as something either good or bad. Nothing in life is so easily classified and it is itself an immature and phony idealism that still thinks in these categories in geo-politics, where moralisms do not exist. It is only partly due to the good aspects of the Enlightenment that America rose to such power and prominence, as well as racial issues. Sub-saharan Africa could never have produced the wealth and creativity that America did in two hundred years, simply by implementing some governmental form. This is the chief error of the Americanists and libertarians, who act as if they literally don’t know anything about race and history (though they often talk to no end like they are the intellectual masters of both).
Having been reduced, then, to homo-economicus in the modern world, it is therefore necessary to understand global capitalism and its socialist dialectical opposite. Another fact that libertarians and “constitutionalists” fail to understand is the globalizing nature of capitalism itself. In fact, The Road to Serfdom contains an entire essay by Hayek on internationalism and global authority, despite the fact that the libertarians and free market capitalists never talk about it. Global capitalism is precisely what went forth as an iconoclastic force for destruction, in terms of localized economies and traditions. If anyone doubts this, all one has to do is look at deregulation and free trade, as well as something like John Perkins’ Confessions of an Economic Hitman. Joseph Stiglitz has also written about this, as well as even Marx himself.
Note that I am not attacking capitalism or saying it is “bad” or entirely “good.” Again, in terms of geo-poltics, the conern is what is, not what should be. Every man may, and will, have is ideals and may work for those ideals as he lists, but what matters in the end is what is. I might believe Byzantium was the greatest form of government, and strive to create New Byzantium or move to Russia and seek to revive the Third Empire, but the student of history who has read his Spengler knows that empires have an organic lifespan and are never resurrected. History, like it or not, does not work that way. Now, certainly there are movers and shakers in history who do have ideals and do work tirelessly to see them enacted, and do achieve legitimate change. However, is it still erroneous to assume that this means an entirely rational system can be cut and pasted onto the world. In terms of geo-political analysis, again what matters is what is. Capitalism is a fascinating phenomenon and much of what Ayn Rand writes in her book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal is correct. The rise of the individual is the story of western man, from ancient Greece and Judaism, to the Magna Carta, to the U.S. Constitution. The presupposition here is the rule of law and the right of the individual, allowing him the freedom to flourish. This form of elitism is correct, and admittedly more just, though there are positive things to be said for monarchy, as per Otto von Habsburg.
In short, I am sick of the narrowness with which the modern debate has been framed. The average intellectual hops online, and has an entire milieu of completely irrelevant positions to choose from, most of which have been completely made irrelevant by the Internet alone. Anyone seeking to rebuild Byzantium through blogs hasn’t a clue about how the world really works, and is stuck in the propositional rationalizing I mentioned above. What does matter in the world is religion, economics, technology and geo-politics. The perspective here taken is one of the objective analyst, not the passionate apologist. I still have passionate views on matters, but I am also mature enough to realize that I can separately and objectively (as objectively as possible) analyze the current state of affairs. For example, if an analyst fails to take into account race and DNA, and academic studies like this, one of the most important discoveries of the previous centuries, one may rest assured they are marginally relevant as a commentator, and likely still operating on dated Enlightenment presuppositions.
This is not to say my interest aren’t still theological and religious. They are, but insofar as I aspire to analyze, I expand into other fields. I have learned that it is small-minded and petty persons who will discourage you from mastering other fields, and often it is out of their own jealousy that they do so. Particularly amongst religious and academic persons have I heard the endless mantra and complaint about my own excessive love for debate and mastering the opposing position, whatever that may have been. But these small-minded persons simply could not grasp Aristotle’s dictum that an “intelligent man can understand a position without adopting it,” to paraphrase. That is what analysis is about, and it is supposed to be what education is about, despite the fact that many of the worst persons I have dealt with were dishonest intellectuals and quackademics. So expect the ante to be upped, from my side, and the topics here to get more hardcore and serious. If that’s offensive to you, then go back to your new Byzantium feminist blog and don’t let the mouse hit you on the way out.