Thursday, November 8, 2018

Ur-Fascism Contra Universal Nationalism

I discuss the universal nationalism that grounds several Alternative Right and New Right groups; in opposition to it, I propose an ur-fascist alternative.

Universal nationalism is the view that 1) every people wants its own nation, 2) every people is entitled to its own nation, and 3) every people should rule itself and not be ruled by others. This view is central to the beliefs of several Alt-Right and New Right thinkers.[1]

In his "The Relevance of the Old Right," Greg Johnson of Counter-Currents writes:
"I am a "universal nationalist," meaning that I believe that ethnonationalism is good for all peoples. Thus I am opposed to imperialism, whereas Old Right regimes practiced imperialism against their fellow Europeans as well as non-whites. Defending imperialism is basically telling your neighbors that you are not above a little murder and theft when it suits you. But that is no way to build solidarity among white nations or a peaceful planet in general, to the extent that these are possible."
In his article, "A Brief Case for Universal Nationalism," Guillaume Durocher writes:
I would like to briefly make the case for universal nationalism, a political ideology defined here as the belief that every nation should have a society and a state of its own. Put more simply still: Every people should have its own country; every people should rule itself, rather than be dictated by outsiders. I believe universal nationalism encapsulates many of the principles which would allow all human beings to live in a more peaceful, prosperous, and progressive world.
First, it is erroneous for Johnson to argue that his support for ethnic nationalism among all peoples is incompatible with imperialism.[2] Ethnic nationalism is the view that a nation should reflect the ethnic identity of the people it houses: Historical, cultural, linguistic, and racial interests should be reflected in the domestic and foreign policy of that nation and its state. This may or may not coincide with with its independence and national sovereignty. That is, a people can have a nation without having autonomy. From the fact that humanity is a diverse amalgam of peoples, it does not follow that every people must have its own nation. Even if peoples were entitled to a nation, it does not follow that they warrant autonomy.

In addition, Johnson's immediate inference is not just fallacious. It is also naive. Historically, one of the motivating forces behind imperialism was the observation that primitive peoples objectively existed but lacked what European peoples had: A structured society. This led to building dependent societies and nations that lacked national sovereignty.

This historical reality is also a reminder of the contrasts between peoples and their capacity to build a society. That is, some peoples seem constitutionally incapable of maintaining their own nation without the perpetual support of others. This leads to the second criticism of the universal nationalist prescription: That its ambition to ensure that every people has a nation of its own will require the very same deprivation of autonomy that Johnson and Durocher both reject imperialism for. There is also the likelihood that arbitrary decisions about borders will have to be made. We have no reason to believe that nations will always want to engage in peaceful population transfers or border disputes without external compulsion.

This leads to a fourth criticism: Durocher implies that multiculturalism is a cause of conflict between distinct peoples. In fact, multiculturalism and its problems are a symptom instead of being the cause of conflicts. The cause of conflicts and violence are the fact that peoples who are distinct come into contact. It does not matter whether they are flung together into the same country or whether they are the outcomes of expanding peoples.

Finally, and related, natural and human history is an unending conflict between biological types. In the course of history, various groups form and then differentiate into communities. In some cases, human communities formed nations. In this natural arena, a community is only entitled to what it can take and keep. Imperialism and settler colonialism, as well as the correlates of these activities at a more basic level, are extensions, not abrogations, of ethnic nationalism. This process is responsible for the biological and human diversity in the world, and that the universal nationalist claims to admire and want to preserve. The point is that a nation is forged, not doled out, a result of organic, not managerial, processes.

The ur-fascist alternative to universal nationalism can be summarized as follows: 1) Every people asserts its own ethnic identity, and in most cases want a nation of their own, 2) every people is entitled to what it can take and keep, and 3) when a nation is forged, a people will naturally seek to maximize its own sovereignty, and this may result in imperialism or settler colonialism, wherein the vital interests of a people result in expanded boundaries.[3]

--------------------
[1] 
Frank Salter, in Chapter 7 of his On Genetic Interests, is one of the first writers to plow an argument in favor of "universal nationalism."
[2] Another problem with universal nationalism is that it does not distinguish between types of imperialism: Cultural, economic, ethnic or racial, geostrategic, and other manifestations of imperialism exist. Some of these are not in the long term vital interests of a nation.
[3] Ur-fascism does not entail a rejection of the desire for national identity on the part of the majority of peoples. What it rejects is the universal nationalist view that entitlement, rather than struggle, should determine whether or not different peoples have distinct nations.

Wednesday, October 31, 2018

Sir Oswald Mosley on Fascism as Caesarism and Science

"Caesarism and science together could evolve Faustian man; a civilisation which could renew its youth in a persisting dynamism..." 
- Sir Oswald Mosley, 'My Life'

Tuesday, October 30, 2018

Mussolini on Fascism as Against Rule by Numbers

"Fascism denies that numbers, by the mere fact of being numbers, can direct human society; it denies that these numbers can govern by means of periodical consultations; it affirms also the fertilizing, beneficient and unassailable inequality of men, who cannot be leveled through an extrinsic and mechanical process such as universal suffrage."
- Benito Mussolini, second part of "The Doctrine of Fascism"

Sunday, October 28, 2018

A Remark from Saddam Hussein to His Executioners

"The lion does not care about a monkey laughing at him from a tree." 
- Saddam Hussein, in response to a spectator during his trial
Saddam Hussein, President of Iraq, in 1980 

Saturday, October 20, 2018

What is a Nation? Giovanni Gentile's Idealist Concept: An Excerpt from 'The Reform of Education' (1922)

Gentile was a trained neo-Hegelian philosopher. His idealism, opposed to naturalism and positivism, clearly speaks through in the excerpt from his writing below. Gentile wrote the first part of The Doctrine of Fascism, where his neo-Hegelian and idealist imprint is also strong, and often mistakenly attributed to Benito Mussolini himself, who wrote the second part. Gentile opposes a biological or material concept of nation, and stresses that peoples of a particular nation must feel themselves set apart from other nations.

Giovanni Gentile (1875-1944); idealist,
neo-Hegelian, essayist and philosopher.

Source: Giovanni Gentile, Chapter I, The Reform of Education, 1922.

What, then, is the nation? A very intricate question, indeed, over which violent discussions are raging, and all the more passionately because the premises and conclusions of this controversy are never maintained in the peaceful seclusion of abstract speculative theories, but are dragged at every moment in the very midst of the concrete interests of the men themselves who affirm or deny the value of nationalities. So that serious difficulties are encountered every time an attempt is made to determine the specific and concrete content of this concept of the nation, which is ever present, and yet ever elusive. Proteus-like, it appears before us, but as we try to grasp it, it changes semblance and breaks away. It is visible to the immediate intuition of every national consciousness, but it slips from thought as we strive to fix its essence.

Is it common territory that constitutes nationality? or is it common language? or political life led in common? or the accumulation of memories, of traditions, and of customs by which a people looks back to one past where it never fails to find itself? Or is it perhaps the relationship which binds together all the individuals of a community into a strong and compact structure, assigning a mission and an apostolate to a people’s faith? One or the other of these elements, or all of them together, have in turn been proposed and rejected with equally strong arguments. For in each case it may be true or it may be false that the given element constitutes the essence of a people’s nationality, or of any historical association whatsoever. All these elements, whether separately or jointly, may have two different meanings, one of which makes them a mere accidental content of the national consciousness, whereas the other establishes them as necessary, essential, and unfailing constituents. For they may have a merely natural value, or they may have a moral and spiritual one. Our birth-land, which nourished us in our infancy, and now shelters the bodies of our parents, the mountains and the shores that surround it and individualise it, these are natural entities. They are not man-made; we cannot claim them, nor can we fasten our existence to them. Even our speech, our religion itself, which do indeed live in the human mind, may yet be considered as natural facts similar to the geographical accidents which give boundaries and elevation to the land of a people. We may, abstractly, look upon our language as that one which was spoken before we were born, by our departed ancestors who somehow produced this spiritual patrimony of which we now have the use and enjoyment, very much in the same way that we enjoy the sunlight showered upon us by nature. In this same way a few, perhaps many, conceive of religion: they look upon it as something bequeathed and inherited, and not therefore as the fruit of our own untiring faith and the correlate of our actual personality. All these elements in so far as they are natural are evidently extraneous to our personality. We do dwell within this peninsula cloistered by the Alps; we delight in this luminous sky, in our charming shores smiled upon by the waters of the Mediterranean. But if we emigrate from this lovely abode, if under the stress of economic motives we traverse the ocean and gather, a number of us, somewhere across the Atlantic; and there, united by the natural tie of common origin, and fastened by the identity of speech, we maintain ourselves as a special community, with common interests and peculiar moral affinities, then, in spite of the severance from our native peninsula, we have preserved our nationality: Italy has crossed the ocean in our wake. Not only can we sunder ourselves from our land, but we may even relinquish our customs, forget our language, abandon our religion; or we may, within our own fatherland, be kept separate by peculiar historical traditions, by differences of dialects or even of language, by religion, by clashing interests, and yet respond with the same sentiment and the same soul to the sound of one Name, to the colours of one flag, to the summons of common hopes, to the alarm of common dangers.

And it is then that we feel ourselves to be a people; then are we a nation. It is not what we put within this concept that gives consistency and reality to the concept itself; it is the act of spiritual energy whereby we cling to a certain element or elements in the consciousness of that collective personality to which we feel we belong. Nationality consists not in content which may vary, but in the form which a certain content of human consciousness assumes when it is felt to constitute a nation’s character.

But this truth is still far from being recognised. Its existence is not even suspected by those who utilise a materially constituted nationality as a title, that is, an antecedent, and a support for political rights claimed by more or less considerable ethnical aggregates that are more or less developed and more or less prepared to take on the form of free and independent states and to secure recognition of a de facto political personality on the strength of an assumed de jure existence.

This truth, however, was grasped by the profound intuition of Mazzini, the apostle of nationalities, the man who roused our national energies, and whose irresistible call awakened Italy and powerfully impelled her to affirm her national being. Even from the first years of the Giovine Italia he insisted that Italy, when still merely an idea, prior to her taking on a concrete and actual political reality, was not a people and was not a nation. For a nation, he maintained, is not something existing in nature; but a great spiritual reality. Therefore like all that is in and for the spirit, it is never a fact ready to be ascertained, but always a mission, a purpose, something that has to be realised—an action.

The Italians to whom Mazzini spoke were not the people around him. He was addressing that future people which the Italians themselves had to create. And they would create it by fixing their souls on one idea—the idea of a fatherland to be conquered—a sacred idea, so noble that people would live and die for it, as for that sovereign and ultimate Good for which all sacrifices are gladly borne, without which man can not live, outside of which he finds nothing that satisfies him, nothing that is conducive to a life’s work. For Mazzini nationality is not inherited wealth, but it is man’s own conquest. A people can not faint-heartedly claim from others recognition of their nation, but must themselves demonstrate its existence, realise it by their willingness to fight and die for its independence: independence which is freedom and unity and constitutes the nation. It is not true that first comes the nation and then follows the state; the nation is the state when it has triumphed over the enemy, and has overcome the oppression, which till then were hindering its formation. It is not therefore a vague aspiration or a faint wish, but an active faith, an energetic volition which creates, in the freed political Power, the reality of its own moral personality and of its collective consciousness. Hence the lofty aim of Mazzini in insisting that Italy should not be made with the help of foreigners but should be a product of the revolution, that is, of its own will.

And truly the nation is, substantially, as Mazzini saw and firmly believed, the common will of a people which affirms itself and thus secures self-realisation. A nation is a nation only when it wills to be one. I said, when it really wills, not when it merely says it does. It must therefore act in such a manner as to realise its own personality in the form of the State beyond which there is no collective will, no common personality of the people. And it must act seriously, sacrificing the individual to the collective whole, and welcoming martyrdom, which in every case is but the sacrifice of the individual to the universal, the lavishing of our own self to the ideal for which we toil.

From this we are not, however, to infer that a nation can under no circumstances exist prior to the formation of its State. For if this formation means the formal proclamation or the recognition by other States, it surely does pre-exist. But it does not if we consider that the proclamation of sovereignty is a moment in a previously initiated process, and the effect of pre-existing forces already at work; which effect is never definite because a State, even after it has been constituted, continues to develop in virtue of those very forces which produced it; so that it is constantly renewing and continually reconstituting itself. Hence a State is always a future. It is that state which this very day we must set up, or rather at this very instant, and with all our future efforts bent to that political ideal which gleams before us, not only in the light of a beautiful thought, but as the irresistible need of our own personality.

The nation therefore is as intimately pertinent and native to our own being as the State, considered as Universal Will, is one with our concrete and actual ethical personality. Italy for us is the fatherland which lives in our souls as that complex and lofty moral idea which we are realising. We realise it in every instant of our lives, by our feelings, and by our thoughts, by our speech and by our imagination, indeed, by our whole life which concretely flows into that Will which is the State and which thus makes itself felt in the world. And this Will, this State is Italy, which has fought and won; which has struggled for a long time amid errors and sorrows, hopes and dejection, manifestations of strength and confessions of weakness, but always with a secret thought, with a deep-seated aspiration which sustained her throughout her entire ordeal, now exalting her in the flush of action, now, in the critical moment of resistance, confirming and fortifying her by the undying faith in ultimate triumph. This nation, which we all wish to raise to an ever loftier station of honour and of beauty, even though we differ as to the means of attaining this end, is it not the substance of our personality,—of that personality which we possess not as individuals who drift with the current, but as men who have a powerful self-consciousness and who look upward for their destiny?

If we thus understand the nation, it follows that not only every man must bear the imprint of his nationality, but that also there is no true science, no man’s science, which is not national. The ancients believed, in conformity with the teachings of the Greeks, that science soars outside of the human life, above the vicissitudes of mortals, beyond the current of history, which is troubled by the fatal conflicts of error, by falterings and doubts, and by the unsatisfied thirst for knowledge. Truth, lofty, pure, motionless, and unchangeable, was to them the fixed goal toward which the human mind moved, but completely severed from it and transcendent. This concept, after two thousand years of speculation, was to reveal itself as abstract and therefore fallacious,—abstract from the human mind, which at every given instance mirrors itself in such an image of truth, ever gazing upon an eternal ideal but always intent on reshaping it in a new and more adequate form. The modern world, at first with dim consciousness, and guided rather by a fortunate intuition than by a clear concept of its own real orientation, then with an ever clearer, ever more critical conviction, has elaborated a concept which is directly antithetical to the classical idea of a celestial truth removed from the turmoil of earthly things. It has accordingly and by many ways reached the conclusion that reality, lofty though it be, and truth itself, which nourishes the mind and alone gives validity to human thought, are in life itself, in the development of the mind, in the growth of the human personality, and that this personality, though ideally beyond our grasp, is yet in the concrete always historical and actual, and realises itself in its immanent value. It therefore creates its truth and its world. Modern philosophy and modern consciousness no longer point to values which, transcending history, determine its movement and its direction by external finalities: they show to man that the lofty aim which is his law is within himself; that it is in his ever unsatisfied personality as it unceasingly strains upward towards its own ideal.

Tuesday, October 9, 2018

Adolf Hitler on Natural Selection, Life, and Living Space

"Truly, this earth is a trophy cup for the industrious man. And this rightly so, in the service of natural selection. He who does not possess the force to secure his living space in this world, and, if necessary, to enlarge it, does not deserve to possess the necessities of life. He must step aside and allow stronger peoples to pass him by." 
- Adolf Hitler, speech in 1940

Monday, October 8, 2018

Gandhi's December 1940 Letter to Adolf Hitler

This letter was written over a year after a July 1939 letter to Hitler.

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, around 1940.

As at Wardha,
December 24, 1940

Dear Friend,

That I address you as a friend is no formality. I own no foes. My business in life has been for the past 33 years to enlist the friendship of the whole of humanity by befriending mankind, irrespective of race, colour or creed.

I hope you will have the time and desire to know how a good portion of humanity who have view living under the influence of that doctrine of universal friendship view your action. We have no doubt about your bravery or devotion to your fatherland, nor do we believe that you are the monster described by your opponents. But your own writings and pronouncements and those of your friends and admirers leave no room for doubt that many of your acts are monstrous and unbecoming of human dignity, especially in the estimation of men like me who believe in universal friendliness. Such are your humiliation of Czechoslovakia, the rape of Poland and the swallowing of Denmark. I am aware that your view of life regards such spoliations as virtuous acts. But we have been taught from childhood to regard them as acts degrading humanity. Hence we cannot possibly wish success to your arms.

But ours is a unique position. We resist British Imperialism no less than Nazism. If there is a difference, it is in degree. One-fifth of the human race has been brought under the British heel by means that will not bear scrutiny. Our resistance to it does not mean harm to the British people. We seek to convert them, not to defeat them on the battle-field. Ours is an unarmed revolt against the British rule. But whether we convert them or not, we are determined to make their rule impossible by non-violent non-co-operation. It is a method in its nature indefensible. It is based on the knowledge that no spoliator can compass his end without a certain degree of co-operation, willing or compulsory, of the victim. Our rulers may have our land and bodies but not our souls. They can have the former only by complete destruction of every Indian—man, woman and child. That all may not rise to that degree of heroism and that a fair amount of frightfulness can bend the back of revolt is true but the argument would be beside the point. For, if a fair number of men and women be found in India who would be prepared without any ill will against the spoliators to lay down their lives rather than bend the knee to them, they would have shown the way to freedom from the tyranny of violence. I ask you to believe me when I say that you will find an unexpected number of such men and women in India. They have been having that training for the past 20 years.

We have been trying for the past half a century to throw off the British rule. The movement of independence has been never so strong as now. The most powerful political organization, I mean the Indian National Congress, is trying to achieve this end. We have attained a very fair measure of success through non-violent effort. We were groping for the right means to combat the most organized violence in the world which the British power represents. You have challenged it. It remains to be seen which is the better organized, the German or the British. We know what the British heel means for us and the non-European races of the world. But we would never wish to end the British rule with German aid. We have found in non-violence a force which, if organized, can without doubt match itself against a combination of all the most violent forces in the world. In non-violent technique, as I have said, there is no such thing as defeat. It is all ‘do or die’ without killing or hurting. It can be used practically without money and obviously without the aid of science of destruction which you have brought to such perfection. It is a marvel to me that you do not see that it is nobody’s monopoly. If not the British, some other power will certainly improve upon your method and beat you with your own weapon. You are leaving no legacy to your people of which they would feel proud. They cannot take pride in a recital of cruel deed, however skilfully planned. I, therefore, appeal to you in the name of humanity to stop the war. You will lose nothing by referring all the matters of dispute between you and Great Britain to an international tribunal of your joint choice. If you attain success in the war, it will not prove that you were in the right. It will only prove that your power of destruction was greater. Whereas an award by an impartial tribunal will show as far as it is humanly possible which party was in the right.

You know that not long ago I made an appeal to every Briton to accept my method of non-violent resistance. I did it because the British know me as a friend though a rebel. I am a stranger to you and your people. I have not the courage to make you the appeal I made to every Briton. Not that it would not apply to you with the same force as to the British. But my present proposal is much simple because much more practical and familiar.

During this season when the hearts of the peoples of Europe yearn for peace, we have suspended even our own peaceful struggle. Is it too much to ask you to make an effort for peace during a time which may mean nothing to you personally but which must mean much to the millions of Europeans whose dumb cry for peace I hear, for my ears are attended to hearing the dumb millions? I had intended to address a joint appeal to you and Signor Mussolini, whom I had the privilege of meeting when I was in Rome during my visit to England as a delegate to the Round Table Conference. I hope that he will take this as addressed to him also with the necessary changes.

I am,
Your sincere friend,
M. K. Gandhi

Saturday, September 22, 2018

The 2001 "Open Letter" from US Jews to US President Bush Followed Decades of Lies Regarding Saddam's Regime

The 2001 "Open Letter to the President" was signed by leading Neoconservatives and Jews in an effort to push the President's foreign policy in their direction.

In his article, "Whose War Is This?," Patrick J. Buchanan mentions this "Open Letter" to then US President George W. Bush, signed by influential Jews and Neoconservatives. It calls for the overthrow of Saddam's government as part of the war on terror:
"We agree with Secretary of State Powell’s recent statement that Saddam Hussein "is one of the leading terrorists on the face of the Earth…." It may be that the Iraqi government provided assistance in some form to the recent attack on the United States. But even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism. The United States must therefore provide full military and financial support to the Iraqi opposition. American military force should be used to provide a "safe zone" in Iraq from which the opposition can operate. And American forces must be prepared to back up our commitment to the Iraqi opposition by all necessary means."
This "Open Letter" reflected the public pressure on the Republican Party establishment that was also expressed in other ways. Charles Krauthammer, a Jew and Neoconservative, was at the forefront of attacking protectionism, nativism, and ethnic identity.

This struggle within the Republican Party and over its vision for the US was also carried out privately. As I point out in a previous article, the Jew and Neoconservative, Paul Wolfowitz, exploited 9/11 to push for military action against Saddam Hussein's regime. Colin Powell, in "Phase Two" of the 9/11 Commission Report, remarked that Wolfowitz argued that "Iraq was a problem that had to be dealt with." He wanted to exploit 9/11 to answer the "Iraq problem." What was this problem? How to get rid of Saddam's regime. US Jews and the Israeli government foresaw "a domino effect, with Saddam's fall followed by that of Israel's other enemies: Arafat, Nasrallah, Assad, the ayatollah and maybe even Gadaffi."

Benjamin Netanyahu nagged the US government to attack Iraq for decades.

In 1990, Netanyahu claimed that "everybody is threatened by Iraq."



There was no link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11. But that never mattered. All that had mattered was that US Jews and the State of Israel wanted Saddam gone.

The 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq cost over two trillion dollars, led to the death of nearly two hundred thousand Iraqis, and cost the lives of over eight thousand US servicemen. Despite these costs, the grip of the Zionist lobby on the US government and a Zionist vision of the Middle East that still defines US foreign policy are intact. Though there continues to be great political fallout and debate over the extent of foreign manipulation of the political process in the US, very little attention has been focused on the cynical manipulation of US Presidents and their foreign policy by a financially powerful and well-placed minority. Efforts to expose it are branded unjustified anti-Semitism and dismissed without discussion.

Tuesday, September 4, 2018

A Quote from Pierre Drieu La Rochelle

"I am a Fascist because I have measured the progress of decadence in Europe. I have seen in Fascism the sole means of limiting and reducing that decadence."
- Drieu La Rochelle

Monday, September 3, 2018

Tuesday, August 28, 2018

A Quote from Mussolini on Duty to Life and Heritage

"It is thus that the Fascist loves and accepts life, ignores and disdains suicide; understands life as a duty, a lifting up, a conquest; something to be filled in and sustained on a high plane; a thing that has to be lived through for its own sake, but above all for the sake of others near and far, present and future." 
- Benito Mussolini, second part of 'The Doctrine of Fascism'