Considerations concerning Fascism of our time

Leo Strauss asked not without a harmless jesting, when certain self-respecting conservatives deemed themselves and especially their progenitor, Edmund Burke as Cicero or Cicerones, let me use plural form, he commented, "Well, if Burke was Cicero, where was his tusculanae disputationes then?". Nearly the same i can apply to those self-identified right-wing “activists" who wield childish insults befitting petites bourgeoisies and consider themselves equal as Niccolò Machiavelli in the meaning of indifferent malice they imagined, i will ask, "good sir, could you show me your La Mandragola or L'asino?" So if you are to say we have Fascists and Fascism groups all over the world on land and sea, i will ask you, not to mock but beg you to consider, to point out who is our Gabriele d'Annunzio.

I am not to act like a neurotic vocabulary police in arguing whether it has been invalid to accuse others of being Fascists, only that i feel an urgent need to classify and describe them more accurately. All of us know what a Fascist is like, but few know what it is, for that reason, if you just use this term as insulting, you will risk the possibility that your resistance against them may become unstable. The following fact we must recognize, that Fascism is undergoing a general revival worldwide, but not in the meaning that multinational corporations are destroying the environment and oppressing the Third World as people are used to saying, it is also fact but they are two facts not one the same. i would rather to say, the dangerous Fascists are always seem to be nostalgic youth who are too find the current world choking.

If we come to the origin of Fascism, of which although i think random book can explain better than i do, we cannot deny that without some kind of mysticism it is unable to snatch the thoughs of Fascism. the idea of the death of the god was improtant, but i marveled at the neglect of the atheists, namely the death of god is meaningful only to those who believe in god because non-existence cannot die. The fascists were thus this kind of people who believe in a dead god and to sacrifice whatever to revive it, which they had already known as impossible. No matter what terms people are using, spirit (most often), tradition, ethnos, religion, et cetera, they all mean the same thing, the thing which goes beyond the intellect of mankind and with the refusal to the present world arranged under rational capitalism.

you can find the personality of masochism with the Fascists, or in another word, the personality of legionaries. What they expected was to be at the mercy of an absolute, mysterious master and experience self-annihilation which often seems to be amorous. if you consider that Ernst Röhm expecially the play Mishima Yukio wrote about him, you will know better what i am talking, the stonewall uprising will never be able to cure his passion to his friend Hitler. i am not indicating that people who says "I chose those friends to fight alongside who I foresaw would one day shed my blood" are fascists, but people who do not say that are most likely not fascists, or without mental illness or some other type of villain. Reason commands one to define the world, but there is a natura of mankind to seek out and devote oneself to the undefinable.

before advancing on our young Fascists, let me give you a quotation by James Thomson i suppose to explain it better:

I am content to note one aspect of this unfortunate mystery which, so far as I am aware, has been seldom studied. The whole scheme of the Atonement, as planned by God, is based upon a crime—a crime infinitely atrocious, the crime of murder and deicide, is essential to its success: if Judas had not betrayed, if the Jews had not insisted, if Pilate had not surrendered, if all these turpitudes had not been secured, the Atonement could not have been consummated. Need one say more? Sometimes, when musing upon this doctrine, I have a vision of the God-man getting old upon the earth, horribly anxious and wretched, because no one will murder him. Judas has succeeded to a large property, and would not be tempted to betray him by three hundred pieces of silver; the chief priests and elders think him insane, and, therefore, as Orientals, hold him in a certain reverence; Pilate is henpecked and superstitious, accounts the wife’s dreams oracular, and will have nothing to do with him; even Peter won’t deny him, although he has restored Peter’s mother-in-law to life. The situation is desperate; he has again and again prayed his Father to despatch a special murderer to despatch him, yet none appears: shall he have to perish by old age or disease? may he be compelled to commit suicide? must he go back to Heaven unsacrificed, foiled for want of an assassin?

Jesus: As God; As a man (1866)

in the meaning that devil has all the time been the best friend of the church, Judas of Jesus, we can presume that hemlock of Socrates, and the very hemlock also saved countless Athenians including Phocion, who was no more than a traitor for Hellas if without his fatal cup. In Venice Antonio‘s best friend was not Bassanio the young trouble-maker but Shylock, he could only achieve the fame of Pylades with the help of the later, which was spoiled by Portia. Also Savonarola should thank Alexander VI the pope, which i believe he had done. Not only the Lebensborn, but also the icons of all the abandoned "sages" and the greedy desire to unreasonable death served as the core of Fascism. The fascism of 20th century ended, i may say, when the Elbe was stained with the blood of mass produced Übermenschen and the flowing of Adige stopped by the corposes in whose blood the brilliant verses of Thomas Carlyle once boiled. 

For now, besides all above, since contemporary fascists have very realistically partially abandoned frivolous myths about death at one hand and honour at another, on the hook of the church there must also be housewife with big breast and traditional life with WLAN and toilet seat. They may feel the same boredom and desire as Leo Naphta, but they will actually not die in that way, lest to be burnt in hell with homosexuals and transgenders, in one word, the Marxists, as they believe. i once said at another occasion, that the strongest impulse of human is to ensure one's possessions by preventing others to have equal. For this reason, a person is by nature to subdue another, either with material possessions or dignity. universalism has become the bitter enemy of the religious, because many people do not consider themselves as being saved if others are saved as well. In short, the fascism of the 21th century has added to the spirit of its predecessors more elements that are certainly despicable but mainly comical, meanwhile the spiritual elements still cannot be ignored. I am not saying that the fascism of the past was devoid of meanness and character of petit bourgeois, but we must notice that the contemporary practice of fascism is based on that every half-mad man expecting his fellow man to be completely mad.

Liberalism has laid down all the weapons of arbitrariness, both faith-based and non-faith-based, but it will not be rewarded for it, despite the doctrine that "thou shalt not do evil to your fellow human", when it is clear that all wicked men will think they are compelled by necessity or suffer from ignorance, the doctrine is pale. The teaching of not to do evil must be based on an absolute defination for evil and, above all, a hierarchy of the values that enables and demands one to make either/or choices. The ghost of Fascism on the contrary picked up such weapon, using the general upset of the era, gave disappointed people cruel hope, because they have achieved such level of depravity to think any security that is not accompanied by crime is but a sham. In country where no one will become infamous by identifying themselves as Fascist, for some with words, for others with deeds, being fascist soon brings one more admiration than having the hair of John Lennon, who can judge whether it is ridiculous that a pre-communist after proclaiming himself in public as fascist will be seen as a maverick as Spinoza?

Especially in East Asia, due to numberous reasons, the birth of modern national states met complete failure. Although such examples are rare, when the fortunate become unfortunate, these people deserve rarely to be pitied, and when the unfortunate soar to great ranks, they deserve even less to be respected. Undisguised arrogance and secret discontent are here being wrapped in the same cowardice share a wicked marriage bed. Usually a man sees no hope of extricating himself from his present predicament except by refusing to aid his dying neighbour. The most unpopular things here are those which are harmless to everyone, for example anti-discrimination laws. You may even see certain transgender people stand up and righteously condemn members of parliament for trying to ban them from being discriminated against, because by being free from discrimination they are deprived of their good fortune in comparsion with those fellow who suffer most. The feature of fascism, let me assume, is that it must rely on the defination of enemy. 

don't ask me like whether capitalism is fascism, I do not know anything about economics and I cannot answer such question. In fact, even if you ask me what capitalism is, I can only say that it is not my profession, I don't know. But in a general sense, Fascism was an increasingly restless mercenary of the plutocrats. it is actually not my own idea but of my friend, that fascism is relied on the idleness of the multitude and people will thus pay for it. yet the very idleness was caused by the system of capitalism which drove most people into poverty and the situation to be exploitated. i have said i know nothing concerning the theory of economics, but even economics, which is seen to be something completely material, is not without its spiritual basement. that is, before making gain in every measure, people have to decide what is beneficial. the capitalists, as they were said to be, would deal with the ropes on which they might be hung, but what was the spiritual origrin, which made capitalists deemed gain desirable than life? to be honest, i have no idea and i hope he could give his consideration as he often do. but for contemporary fascism, under system of capitalism or not, it shows more and more colour from Stalinism and the Catholic church.

as Georges Bernanos suggested in his Journal d'un curé de campagne, the saints are dangerous thing to the church and if everyone follows them, the religion will come to its end. i don't doubt Stalin considered the same, if everyone is to follow the paradigm of Aleksandr Ulyanov, nothing can seem to be more troublesome to him. i am not sure whether it is a good joke, but i think many of you have heard how Stalin threatened Krupskaya and similar jokes. Average accountancy students will be found more pleasant to Stalin than the readers of Nietzsche, the same thing for stalinism and catholic church is despised people who also despise themselves are welcomed. notice and no one can ever despise, if they have no notion at all concering lofty things. So actually the lukewarm multitude, who have all opposite things half-half, who love John of the cross and hate those who ignore their messages on dating apps in half-half composed modern fascism.
 
theocracy can make things even worse, and religious communities with the full potentia of the smallest unit of fascism, are rapidly spreading. ealier in last year, when i explained to someone on the success of Aum Shinrikyo, i said mankind is such creature, that they go mad when in need of tears, religions were created for the sake of tears. And as Heraclitus said, we can never ascertain the depth of logos even we have steped into every road. such an  impulse push mankind to religions and all the chaos it brings, mankind never gets tired in seeking for new chaos. Religions elevated the hidden hostility of individuals to a divine obligation, cancelled every possibility for forming a public. religious issues cannot be relating to private freedom, for the consideration below:

In order to know what can be politically benefical, it is first necessary to identify people's ends. we easily attribute the reason why citizens are not active in political participation to the fact that they do not know what they will get out of it, but the fact is that it is no longer possible to form a general will that goes beyond private ends. The disappearance of the general will is due to tyranny or faction, the former being consequently an extreme case of the latter. The general will is not a simple sum of individual (factional) wills, it cannot be invented and has an organic run of its own. The general will does not harmonise all individual wills, but forces them to be silent. Individualism and rebellious ideas based on private freedom are thus fatal to a state enduring tyranny. Strictly speaking, tyranny can only be established when the state is destroyed, under which there can be nothing public and, of course, no concept of individuality and individual freedom. There are those who tolerate tyranny and those who do not. In this case, those who demand individual freedom are often refusing to punish the traitors of the public.

it was from my note and i think i wrote it during some boring lecture. For the most part, religions are nasty parties that takes advantage of human nature. It could be said that theocracy is the end of bureaucracy, and the end where the inherent meanness of mankind will eventually take us to, for everything that hinders the degradation of mankind is hated by religions. 

let me finally give you a gloomy see by a metaphor: i think you know what is typical marriage of moderns like, if the market of matching is to be said as capitalism, then with religion you pick up someone you will not if without it, with fascism you reciting the mythology of Boreas force everyone to endure their savage partner. It’s dangerous, when they eventually find that they are not at the cliff of Dover to which they are supposed to be led to. i do not know how long will our depressed youth still wandering the churches and graves, wait in despair for the excommunicatio which the only thing can be able to satisfy them among those which they seek in religions, for we have had no hemlock for our mal du siècle.

(P.s. If you observe the average Chinese on what they think they can do to Taiwan citizens after the invasion they dream for, you will better get the mixture of astonishing meanness and illiterate Romanticism.)