Friday, January 15, 2016

Fascism: It Just Doesn't Last

I have a tiny little post up from 2010 about That Rotten Bismarck, the progenitor of German nationalism. Why? Because he sacrificed the German peoples so that he could play Realpolitik with his contemporaries.

I have mentioned Erasmus a few times. In response to some of Annissimov's early neo-reactionary stuff in 2014, another one about culture that was posted in 2014 but likely written much earlier, since it looks like one I had on my hard drive for a while, and the one in 2105 asking how much of a heresy is phyletism.

So, to paint the picture- I do not find the nationalism of the modern state particularly helpful. I think it tends to degrade and destroy its people. I prefer small realms- a city and its hinterlands, preferably ruled by a switched on monarch who would understand things, like Von Mises's Human Action.

I think the tendency for these small realms to go come from expansionary dreams and the aristocratic young female's desire to marry up- this is why I mention Erasmus a few times- these are temptations he warns against. They both mean entanglements with foreigners, and the latter often ends up meaning a ruling class that looks and feels a fair bit different from the lower classes.

Expansionary dreams were effectively ended by atomic weapons.

But we still have this other problem- we need a hierarchy that works. This is why I think Jim's The Trouble With Fashism is not as Deconstructing Leftism would have it, mere signalling.

The modern state must be ended. The incentives women face are one of the key problems we face in terms of creating a harmonious society- and this is something apparently hidden to those inordinately worried about the Jews. Notice how many of these Euro politicians who let the immigrants in are women. They aren't just operating on an ideological level- this is a seriously screwed up mismatch between and evolutionary drive and an artificial environment.

It didn't end well for Pinochet, and Franco would be pretty unhappy with what Spain has become.


Anonymous said...

People confuse German national socialism with fascism, or falangism, or nationalism, or social nationalism. The problem with Nazism is not as Jonah Goldberg and others will tell you that it is socialist, but that it is a product of German romanticism. As was communism, and Bismarck's pan-German nationalism as far as I know.

German romanticism looks to the superman, the superior individual who exists without normal human limits, including morality. If he fails he is forgiven, because he strives nobly. He can kill as many people as he wants and destroy anything he wants. So the Nazi or the communist revolutionary operate under hero morality.

Nationalism of all types is quite the opposite, a realistic accounting for human limitations and a pragmatic solution to various social problems.

August said...

Bureaucrats completely routed the aristocrats during the revolutionary movements of the 1800s. The aristocrats had been losing ground for a while, since to accrue 'absolute' power monarchs would use bureaucrats as agents of the state rather than the aristocrats who had traditional rights to various offices. The revolutions removed them from their subordinate roles, because in the new language of oppressor versus victim, the bureaucrats can cast themselves as the objective rectifiers of whatever perceived oppression that there is. Thus they seldom are brought to judgement for their own crimes.

What is different about this new nationalism that will make it more enduring than the old? If it rests on the same modern state the bureaucrats thrive in, it will still be dysgenic. That is, it is predatory on the ethnicity it claims to be for since it does not consider how a people are made and unified in the first place.