*“For what manner of right did Xerxes march against Greece, or his father against Scythia? Or take the countless other cases of the sort that one might mention. Why, surely, these men follow nature - the nature of right - in acting thus; yes, on my soul, and follow the law of nature - though not that I dare say; which is made by us; we mold the best and strongest among us, taking them from their infancy like young lions, and utterly enthral them by our spells and witchcraft, telling them the while that they must have but their fair share, and that this is what is fair and just. But I fancy, when some man arises with enough nature, he shakes off all that we taught him, bursts his bonds, and breaks free; he tramples underfoot our codes and juggleries, our charms and “laws”, which are all against nature; our slave rises in revolt and shows himself our master, and there shines out the full light of the right by nature.”

— Callicles, Gorgias*

“'Paradise is under the shadow of a swordsman' - this is also a symbol and a test-word by which souls with noble and warrior-like origin betray and discover themselves."
— Nietzsche

“At that time he was probably the most beautiful man alive, as he was certainly the most violent, but that’s the problem. How do you separate a tiger’s beauty from its ferocity? Or a cheetah’s elegance from the speed of its attack? Achilles was like that - the beauty and the terror were two side of a single coin.”

*“It is the business of the very few to be independent; it is a privilege of the strong.”

— Friedrich Nietzsche*

*“Each day a trumpet soundeth in mine ear, its echo in my heart.”

— Lord Byron*

Note: it is ok if you are a Conservative/Traditionalist/Reactionary, but it is important that you understand the delineation between us so that we can better understand how we can work as a team.

IN CLOSING

The purpose of this post is to help you understand what fascism really is, what conservatism is, who you really are, and therefore be able to clearly see where we stand in relation to each other and our shared enemies. It is by understanding who we are that we are able to identify who is the enemy. For instance, there is a lot of misplaced admiration for the PRC, the DPRK, and the Soviet Union because they exhibit some of the same means we idealize. Its a mistake to call them friends since their ends are against our interests (think for instance of a construction crew: just because they are using the same tools/methods it doesn't mean they are building the same thing). Piss poor political thinking and theorizing is the reason why our fortunes have been on the decline for the pasts two millennia. If we are to succeed, we must think, see, and act clearly. The time for hobbyism and angsty edge posting has long past. The enemy has us on the ropes, and there are many painful truths we must embrace before we can start effectively fighting back.

Conservatism is a psychological temperament which focuses on stasis and inflexibility. This manifests cognitively in their idealization of a specific time in history which leads to a paradigm where they think an equilibrium can be achieved while acting in the same way despite a changing environment, the presence of dynamic actors, and the gravity/inertia of habits. A classic example is when American Conservatives think they can take power back by simply "defending the Constitution" and being "moral." Another classic is when a Christian cites the Crusading era as an "argument winning" counter example when one makes the case that Christianity is inherently a pacifist religion which progresses toward a universal and peaceful order (e.g. Augustine, Photius, etc.). The conservative fails to understand that life is inherently dynamic and that ascribing to a contradicting philosophy, even living hypocritically, places them on weak rhetorical and psychological grounds. Words mean things, and even if you are a hypocrite, every subsequent generation that ascribes to your stated ethos will progress towards its implicated telos by sheer merit of probability that each generation down the line will take their convictions more seriously than you do.

TLDR GRUG EXAMPLEImagine this scenario: you idealize a point in your life that you were in amazing shape but were at Cancun on vacation (doing drugs, pounding muff raw while dumping vril in sloots, drinking, eating crap, etc.). You can run wicked fast, lift massive weights, and looked absolutely aesthetic despite doing these things at this time because your body is strongly built from years of adhering to certain values and habits. As a twenty something year-old you can sustain that for some time and still not degrade your body or performance, but if you want to maintain your healthy body you can't continue doing that even the minority of the time. This is what is called a "contradiction" in practical Spenglerian terms. You are, as I alluded above, a product of your habits, and your habits are formed downstream of your goals (since any genuine adherent seeks to bring into alignment their actions with their beliefs) you will therefore gravitate towards that telos. Now, a Conservative thinks you can live this two month period indefinitely. They believe they can isolate this place in time and recreate it without suffering the inertia of their actions. In other words, they believe they can have their cake and eat it too without suffering the consequences. They would say something along the lines of "See! I was still jacked while doing all this bad stuff therefore they must not be antagonistic. The way to be jacked is to do what I did in Cancuuuuuun!"

Now do you understand why conservatives always lose? Now can you see why Traditionalists have to see the world through a lens of "degeneration" to excuse their failure to act effectively in the world?

I believe that as things politically worsen, we will continue to see an influx of conservatives in our cultural sphere. Their association and presence will cause many to conflate fascism with conservatism (as they do now since this same phenomenon happened in the 20th century). Of course I welcome them as allies and fellow travelers, but its a mistake to allow these people any form of leadership in thought or action. They lack the mental faculty to navigate life effectively, as shown above, in addition to not sharing the same ends.

Remember, Schmitt's friend/enemy distinction is hinged on sharing the same ends, not the same means (because you can be a son-of-a-bitch and still be our son-of-a-bitch, feel?). If we are to change the course of our nation, and the outcome of history itself, we must steer our ship towards a more majestic port of call, therefore you must think in the terms stated above. You must be dynamic/flexible in approach as well as choosing/acting on a moral set which makes you more powerful so that we can fulfill our mission. The only thing that never changes is the first principles (indicated above).

WHAT MEANS FASCISM?FASCISM

The term "Fascism" is used as a catch-all phrase to describe any aristocratic ideology that counters Marxism since the 1930's. This term, as it is commonly understood, is only marginally related to actual Italian Fascism, and instead came from a mandate of Stalin in the context of the Spanish Civil War to denote all enemies of the "proletariat." The exact definition of fascism eludes most contemporaries, and even the foremost Communist scholar on the subject of our time, Robert Paxton, is only able to recount it as a vibe in addition to some general characteristics.

Despite the lack of a current understanding, I posit that Fascism is this:

I. A philosophy which champions an organic/natural view of life and therefore perceives the nature of the world as a constant battle of wills.
II. An ethical system which hinges on Master Morality/Warrior Ethos which is used in an ends justify the means context.
III. The ultimate "Good" is defined, not as an abstract finite end, but simply as a will to a life intensely and majestically lived. (I.e. Vitalism)

In sum, Fascism is ultimately a product of Nietzsche. Remember that Nietzsche was the luminary philosopher common to all fascist movements including the Futurists, the Fascists, the Falangists, the National Socialists, and even the Iron Guard. Of course fascism had, in its independent contexts, a confluence of other philosophers/modes of thought that influenced their individual manifestations. Yet, the only potent common denominator shared by all was Nietzsche (I would also argue that Hegel had a pronounced impact as well but in a subordinate role).

Authoritarianism, Totalitarianism, and social "conservatism" are qualities that are either incidental or a product of Communist rhetorical framing. These values are mostly a means and not an end in themselves. If one were to denote these traits as the measure of "fascism" then one would wrongly identify any Communist polity as fascist as well. Fascism and Communism are opposed in that they have conflicting goals. The former seeks intense, grand, and vitalistic life as an end while the latter seeks equality, peace, contentment, and small life as the end.

CONSERVATISM

Conservatism just denotes someone that doesn't want change in superficial forms (e.g. changes in technology, social organization, political organization, etc.) and that prime motive is what colors and defines their actions.

Conservatism is not inherently "right-wing" or aristocratic. In Russia, to be a conservative means to be a Communist that wants to rekindle the Soviet Union. In America it means being a Classical Liberal. In Spain it means being a Monarchist etc.. People point to National Socialism as a "Conservative Revolution" which is incorrect, the only reason why there is a lot of overlap between the National Socialists and the Prussian Aristocracy is because Germany at that time came from a social status quo of a military society with a type of diluted warrior ethos that had similarities with the fascist ethos.