“Fascism is a genus of political ideology whose mythic core in its various permutations is a palingenetic form of populist ultra-nationalism”
Let us ‘deconstruct’ this formula:
Mythic core – The idea that the nation is in decay, it is unstable and has lost what it once was. It is in its death throws. In the way Roger Griffin paints it, the nation is gripped by materialism and egotism, everyone is for themselves and no longer cares about the nation as a whole. I wonder what Roger Griffin thinks about this personally, should we all step over each other for money? Is materialism and selfishness a good thing? Is wanting to live in a peaceful community where we all help each other out and care for each other a bad thing? More importantly, what the hell is ‘fascist’ about pointing out negative aspects of society? It seems like these ‘academics’ think chaos and social instability is either positive or should just be ignored, we should pretend that nothing is occurring.
I would like to point out something else here, the constant reference in ‘academic’ literature about ‘fascism’ that place the idea of heroism in a negative frame, the negativity connection of heroism and ‘fascist myth’. Apparently, cowardice is a positive attribute in modern society. All these videos of terrorist attacks with hundreds of people standing around videoing or running away. Most people see terrified individuals running to safety, I see plenty of people who could unite to overpower degenerates, pushing each other out of the way to save themselves and occasionally the odd person putting themselves in danger to help others. The cases where the terrorist degenerates have just knives, where are the men circling around these people? Grab something, if you have nothing then tackle them when they are looking in the other direction. Where is your dignity? Where is your anger and outrage? Nothing, just a beer belly and no self-respect or care for others.
According to Roger Griffin the willingness to put your life on the line to better your nations circumstances fits into the ‘fascist minimum’. Does the willingness to risk your own life to end that of a terrorists so there is one less Islamic Extremist in the country make someone a fascist, Roger? Or do you prefer cowardice? If heroism is fascist then what ideology shall we link cowardice with?
Palingenetic – This term means ‘rebirth’. It signifies the idea of aspiring for a national rebirth, like a phoenix rising out of the ashes.
Populist – This is a term we are very familiar with at present, we hear it ad nauseam, mostly with negative connotations. As put by Alain de Benoist in is essay What is Populism? (The Telos Essays, Telos Press, 2018, pg. 334-358):
“It has become a political insult or a fail for the views of its opponents, accused of awakening the dangerous inclinations of the working classes and used by the ruling classes to stigmatize those who reproach them for having annexed power for their exclusive use.”
Thus, a populist politician is someone who is accused of ‘pandering to the masses’ – or to put it truthfully, it is a politician who bases their policies on what the public actually want instead of what corporations, academia and inner-city dwellers want. Oh, how terrible of a thought! Imagine actually being a democratic politician in a “democratic” country?
‘We saw the perfect example of this [anti-populist rhetoric] in June 2016 after the decision of the British people to leave the European Union, […] Bernard-Henri Lévy saw in Brexit the “victory of the most rancid for of sovereignty and the most idiotic form of nationalism,” Jacques Attali saw the “dictatorship of populism,” Alain Minc the victory “of ill-educated people over the well-educated.” All of them [wondered what could be done to overturn the vote] Some said it was not necessary to consult people, who know nothing about the issue and will say whatever. Others say our priority is to stop this from happening again at any cost.”
This last sentence is the most concerning. The media, academia and so forth tell the public the ‘populism’ is a dirty term. The general public rely on ‘authoritative sources’ to inform them, they do not desire and/or have the time to look into every single thing; to study into politics, philosophy, anthropology, sociology and understand exactly how badly they are being screwed around and manipulated by those in charge of what the spectacle forces into their minds. A few more points worth quoting by Alain de Benoist before we continue:
‘[S]ome people, such as international lawyer Larent Cohen-Tanungi, simply propose banning referenda in the European Treaties. Others argue that certain issues be protected from the popular vote as a matter of principle, and that the “majority level” be increased to 60 percent (why not 90 percent?). Jean Claude-Juncker had already said: “There can be no democratic choice against the European treaties!”’
Naturally, because the working-classes tend to vote for more nationalist policies, most elites equate the working-classes with being ‘less-educated’ and dangerous masses who shouldn’t be allowed to decide for themselves:
‘This same argument has been used against those who voted for “Brexit, while in the United States, Donald Trump also achieved his best results amongst those with fewer qualifications. Whereas, in the 1950s and 60s, nobody reproached Communists Party voters for lacking in qualifications, now it is implied that a lack of education automatically makes one receptive to simplistic and harmful ideas. Higher study becomes a guarantee of a predisposition to adhere to the right ideas – which is laughable. We might just as well argue that the least educated are also the least conditioned by the dominant ideology, and that the more cultivated people are in reality the most inclined to parrot fashionable mantras and the identify with social conformism.”’
‘It is definitely easy to denounce the “fears” that are said to feed populism, and particularly the people who “manipulate” these fears, but we would do better to ask ourselves about their causes and their foundations.’
As true as this final statement is, elites like Roger Griffin will merely say that the causes and their foundations are populists. If you reply to these elites with “well, no, populists play to an existing fear, they do not create the fear for it already exists?” They will then reply that “the public are just seeing things, they are sheep that need to be herded by the ‘better educated’ who are more superior to people who actually have lived experience amongst problematic areas, as opposed to people like myself in nice safe gated communities, wandering aimlessly in a fantasy land away from the working-class.”
Now, our final point before discussing Evola and Benoist:
Ultra-Nationalism – In 2019 the terms nationalist and ultra-nationalist are used interchangeably. We have far-Left openly communist/Marxists (especially in academia, I know this from first-hand experience) who see no difference at all between nationalism and ultra-nationalism. When you go too far to the Left anything nationalist is ultimately fascist, none of your other views are relevant at all. (The same goes for the Right, you have to be aligned with all positions or you are on the other side, if you are rejected by the majority on both the Left and the Right bravo!)
Ultra-nationalism is (apparently) an extreme devotion to your own nation, you put your nation above others (why wouldn’t you? Why would you want to ‘better’ other nations before yours? Where you live should be of primary importance, why should we assist any other nation that does not reciprocate the help that we give them? Why should any nation take on a dependent nation, how is making another nation entirely reliant on us help them in the first place? Would you be friends with someone who merely uses you as a psychologist, who isn’t there for you when you need them?)
On page seven, Griffin states: “By its nature fascism is racist, since all ultra-nationalisms are racist in their celebration of the alleged virtues and greatness of an organically conceived nation or culture.” But then he immediately continues with:
“However, fascist ultra-nationalism does not necessarily involve biological or Social Darwinism concepts of race leading to eugenics, euthanasia, and attempted genocide. Nor does it necessarily involve anti-Semitism, or hatred directed against any particular group perceived as culturally or genetically different,”
Fascism is by nature racist because people celebrate their races success, but fascism does not have to be racist either? What does he mean? He doesn’t mean anything at all by this, he is leaving a void to ensnare anyone that happens to be a nationalist but also doesn’t deny the existence of race. So, if you are a professor of biology and you are Right-wing, I am sorry to inform you, but you are a fascist.
Will be continued in Part 5