Your Email:

Subject:

Message:
Entry: Europe's Fascist Future? Link: http://www.takimag.com/site/article/europes_fascist_future#2734 Post contents: Mr Cundiff - sorry I'm late, and I hope you're still checking in on responses to your comment: You say: "Fascism in this sense was not a racialist movement, Judeophobic movement, or anti-Christian movement or neo-pagan, and it took Corporatism seriously as an economic model." Yes, yes, that's exactly what I mean. Remove the extra baggage and that's exactly what fascism was, and not just Italy. Every nation has some form of nationalism; the only difference is in the degree, so nationalism is not a product of fascism, but can be associated with fascism, or any other political environment. Liberalism today (not two or three hundred years ago or at any time in between), in its most perverted form, is Romanticism and Marxism, with a measure of extreme Luddism thrown in. Now to a follower of this mindset, anyone who doesn't fit into this model is a fascist. If you say that everyone should work and pay the bills and that welfare should be kept to the absolute minimum necessary to prevent uprisings, then you're a fascist. As far as political labels are concerned, years ago, usually for my personal clarity of thought, I came to the conclusion that all the customary political tags had become useless, so I developed the handy method of assessing everything in terms of being synthetic or analytic, i.e. inductive or deductive, or subjective universalist or objective universalist etc. I mean, this was the big beef between Aristotle and Plato (whose Republic was realised in National Socialism), wasn't it? The method can be applied to every object or process in the universe, and you usually can assess the object or process almost instantly. A J Ayer was the inspiration for this, in his book 'Language: Truth and Logic'. The irony of universals is that a deductive argument can always be proved, but never entirely verified whereas an inductive argument can always be verified but never entirely proven. You have to meet in the middle. So 'true conservatism' is synthetic because it flows from many to one, the other side, as an example, 'the left', flows from one to many, so it's analytic. Now of course, the great irony of Marxism (to me anyway) is if you follow it to its logical conclusion, it starts as analytic, in other words all individuals must conform to the single line of thought and purpose, and if they don't they will be made to conform to think as a single mind whether they like it or not (or be killed), and as communism, it ends up being synthetic, a great big One comprised of individuals working to a common purpose; presumably at that point to disintegrate and start all over again... But enough of that. And my point is the same as yours: fascism (which you call Cultural Marxism), as the term is used today, denotes anything certain people don't happen to like. I do suggest that we remove all the various labels with their suble differences and return to first principles. Sent at: 2008 12 01