Right Wing Discussion Thread XIV: Join the Friendkorps

[Sirocca]

>implying that homosexuals cannot be pious or Christian

Well that’s a big bruh moment right there..

>implying Christianity condones Lust or homoeroticism

It is impossible to justify, in the Christian religion, an inclination for homoeroticism. It has nothing to do with pious, gay Christians; pious, gay Christians, if they’re honest, would assent to the teachings of the Church on homoeroticism and condemn it.

EDIT: An amendment.

I do think Christianity (or at least it's Bible) does occasionally present a (non-homo-)erotic aesthetics or imagery in it's story

[Nea Byzantia]

It's pretty apparent that Scripture and Tradition both condemn homosexual acts, so there's no real way to say from a Christian standpoint that homosexuality does not bring condemnation unto punishment.

And yet it seems that 80 percent of the clergy is gay..
https://www.thetablet.co.uk/news/11356/ ... he-vatican

Only in the Roman Catholic Church.

No. Everyone is "asexual" until they start fantasizing or thinking about sex; which is pretty early in life. Read the whole thing.

Sexuality develops when you start to feel sexual attraction. It's really that simple.

I don't think we disagree. I just think we're saying the same thing in different ways.

[Yusseria]

And yet it seems that 80 percent of the clergy is gay..
https://www.thetablet.co.uk/news/11356/ ... he-vatican

Only in the Catholic Church.

Sexuality develops when you start to feel sexual attraction. It's really that simple.

I don't think we disagree. I just think we're saying the same thing in different ways.

You were saying that sexuality is determined by action. Or at least that's what you appeared to be saying. If not then my mistake.

[Sirocca]

What is the opinion of right-wingers on this thread about capital punishment? More specifically execution.

I support it. Also, isn't capital punishment and execution the same thing?

I can also propose an alternative method of capital punishment where the punishment is financial or economical.

[Salus Maior]

It's pretty apparent that Scripture and Tradition both condemn homosexual acts, so there's no real way to say from a Christian standpoint that homosexuality does not bring condemnation unto punishment.

And yet it seems that 80 percent of the clergy is gay..
https://www.thetablet.co.uk/news/11356/ ... he-vatican

That's not really an authoritative source.

[Joohan]

I would have to disagree here.

You are confusing debate with with disunity. Debate and disagreement is allowed under a fascist system, but not anything which could cause destruction or disunity.

To begin with, the view of constant violance and change is not a fascist one. The view point which you referenced is from Italian futurists, some of whom were supporters of fascism - but who were not intrinsically themselves fascists. Most fascists, especially those within established regimes, did neither desired permanent revolution nor constant change. The Japanese Empire ( with its numerous factions and philosophers ) quite explicitally invisioned an eternal and never ending royal system, built upon a foundation of centuries of ancient values and virtues. Then there were the Nazis, who just putting aside the propoganda of a thousand year reich, clearly had a long term goal set for the German nation ( Lebesraum, eugenics, natalism, etc ). In regards to reverance to the past, the more conservative and Christian fascist states ( as well as the Japanese ) clearly held a reverance for tradition and history.

Debate within fascism did exist during its hayday - but opinions and views perceived to be destructive were not allowed. The Nazis were a good example of this on two counts. The left of the NSDAP had very different ideas on the direction which Germany should in, opinions which were well known but permitted by Hitler any how. The left of the party was not purged until it was believed that a violent coup was imminent. They were not purged until it was believed they were a threat. A similar debate revolved around religion in the party, with the layman being Christian, much of the senior leadership being atheist, and the SS, as well as some leaders, being occultists. Three radically different opinions, but all permitted during their time because none was seen as being decisive or destructive.

I am not as well versed for the Japanese Empire, but I am aware that they had numerous differing philosophers and idealogues among the numerous factions.

This post isn't of the quality I want it to be, but I'm at work and in my phone.

Anyways. Fascism isn't one rigid opinion for the entire nation - fascism is a goal and a general direction. There is plenty of debate on how to get there.

All disagreement can easily erupt into disunity. There's a reason why leftist groups, which tend towards the academic, are infamous for constantly splitting. The heretic, as the saying goes, is worse than an unbeliever.

The Japanese Empire was totalitarian but distinctly not fascist.

ut it is the purest form of democracy if the nation be considered as it should be from the point of view of quality rather than quantity, as an idea, the mightiest because the most ethical, the most coherent, the truest, [b]expressing itself in a people as the conscience and will of the few, if not, indeed, of one, and ending to express itself in the conscience and the will of the mass, of the whole group ethnically molded by natural and historical conditions into a nation, advancing, as one conscience and one will, along the self same line of development and spiritual formation

...

A nation, as expressed in the State, is a living, ethical entity only in so far as it is active. Inactivity is death. Therefore the State is not only Authority which governs and confers legal form and spiritual value on individual wills, but it is also Power which makes its will felt and respected beyond its own frontiers, thus affording practical proof of the universal character of the decisions necessary to ensure its development. This implies organization and expansion, potential if not actual. Thus the State equates itself to the will of man, whose development cannot he checked by obstacles and which, by achieving self-expression, demonstrates its infinity.

...

A doctrine must therefore be a vital act and not a verbal display. Hence the pragmatic strain in Fascism, it’s will to power, its will to live, its attitude toward violence, and its value.

...

Fascism does not, generally speaking, believe in the possibility or utility of perpetual peace. It therefore discards pacifism as a cloak for cowardly supine renunciation in contradistinction to self-sacrifice. War alone keys up all human energies to their maximum tension and sets the seal of nobility on those peoples who have the courage to face it. All other tests are substitutes which never place a man face to face with himself before the alternative of life or death. Therefore all doctrines which postulate peace at all costs are incompatible with Fascism. Equally foreign to the spirit of Fascism, even if accepted as useful in meeting special political situations -- are all internationalistic or League superstructures which, as history shows, crumble to the ground whenever the heart of nations is deeply stirred by sentimental, idealistic or practical considerations. Fascism carries this anti-pacifistic attitude into the life of the individual. " I don't care a damn „ (me ne frego) - the proud motto of the fighting squads scrawled by a wounded man on his bandages, is not only an act of philosophic stoicism, it sums up a doctrine which is not merely political: it is evidence of a fighting spirit which accepts all risks.

...

History does not travel backwards. The Fascist doctrine has not taken De Maistre as its prophet. Monarchical absolutism is of the past, and so is ecclesiolatry. Dead and done for are feudal privileges and the division of society into closed, uncommunicating castes. Neither has the Fascist conception of authority anything in common with that of a police ridden State.

A party governing a nation “totalitarianly" is a new departure in history. There are no points of reference nor of comparison. From beneath the ruins of liberal, socialist, and democratic doctrines, Fascism extracts those elements which are still vital. It preserves what may be described as "the acquired facts" of history; it rejects all else. That is to say, it rejects the idea of a doctrine suited to all times and to all people.

...

The Fascist State is, however, a unique and original creation. It is not reactionary but revolutionary, for it anticipates the solution of certain universal problems which have been raised elsewhere, in the political field by the splitting up of parties, the usurpation of power by parliaments, the irresponsibility of assemblies; in the economic field by the increasingly numerous and important functions discharged by trade unions and trade associations with their disputes and ententes, affecting both capital and labor; in the ethical field by the need felt for order, discipline, obedience to the moral dictates of patriotism.

...

Fascism sees in the imperialistic spirit -- i.e. in the tendency of nations to expand - a manifestation of their vitality. In the opposite tendency, which would limit their interests to the home country, it sees a symptom of decadence. Peoples who rise or rearise are imperialistic; renunciation is characteristic of dying peoples.

Fascism is distinctly revolutionary, oriented towards change and violence, and built on precepts that necessarily preclude dissent, even if Giovanni Gentile thought otherwise.

The Strasserists were purged precisely because they posed a disagreement. There's a reason they were purged so soon after the Nazis took power - once they controlled a section of society, they had no tolerance for dissent. The idea of a leftist coup in Nazi Germany is bullshit propaganda that was hardly taken seriously even at the time. The Night Of The Long Knives was not a defensive measure. And furthermore, the idea that dissenting ideas about religion were tolerated in the upper ranks of the Nazi hierarchy presumes that there was a position to dissent from. Hitler was little more than an opportunist when it came to religion, and his inner circle of corulers were not of one mind.

Sorry for the short response. Shitty week.

Im back, and this time with a computer! Now I can give a better response.

Now, in regards to Giovanni Gentile - he is by far the most renowned and infamous confirmed fascist philosopher ( not counting people who might only be speculatively called fascists like Evola ) - but it would be a mistake to assume that he was the creator of fascism, or that all fascist theory is derived from his works. Like Karl Marx, he is accredited for laying into words the first major piece of literature in regards to the ideology, but like Marx he didn't actually create the ideology. Fascism had existed in a variety of forms since the beginning of beginning of the 20th century: Action Francaise in France, the syndicalism of Georges Sorel, the Italian Nationalist Association of Italy, Spanish national syndicalism - all of these groups and theories existed prior Gentile's publication of The Doctrine of Fascism.

Even after the publication, there were numerous ideologues who, though fascist, held different and varying opinions in regards to many of Gentile's positions. Carl Schmitt for example. Gentile stated that, History does not travel backwards, but Schmitt purposed in Political Theology ( name of an essay, he's German so not very creative ) that, " all significant concepts of the modern theory of the state are secularized theological concepts " - which in turn would necessitate significant influence from the past. Like wise, Gentile posited the state creates the nation, but then Corneliu Codreanu stated ( I think it was a speech, can't cite which particular one ), " The state is simply a garment to clothe the body of the nation. We can make a new, luxurious, expensive garment, but it will be useless if it covers a body which is worn out, destroyed by moral and physical gangrene " Here Codreanu clearly posits that it is the nation which creates and governs the state, not the other way around.

Giovanni Gentile was an excellent fascist thinker - but he was not the supreme authority of fascism. Like he himself said in regards to fascism, " That is to say, it rejects the idea of a doctrine suited to all times and to all people. " Gentile was an Italian fascist, and his work reflected the flavor of Italian fascism - but, just like you state, he was often ignored by the fascist government of Italy.

I still posit that fascism is not concerned with perpetual violence, and that Gentile's writings on the matter was almost certainly the influence of the futurists, ( the influence is pretty clear in The Futurist Manifesto, written 23 years prior to the Doctrine of Fascism).

Why would you not consider the Japanese Empire to be fascist? Certainly different when compared to their European counterparts, but mirroring them in many ways - more fitted to the culture and traditions of Japan.

Edit:

Almost forgot: the dissent thing.

Look, in hindsight, it was pretty unlikely that the SA and leftist nazis were going to start a revolution - but it wasn't so clear at the time. It would be a few years into the regime before the SA and strasserists were purged - during which plenty of debate had gone on between the conservative and revolutionary wing of the NSDAP. The purge didn't occur until it was thought that Rohm and the SA were planning a coup.

[Joohan]

And yet it seems that 80 percent of the clergy is gay..
https://www.thetablet.co.uk/news/11356/ ... he-vatican

That's not really an authoritative source.

What do you mean the gay, atheist, advisor to socialist politicians, isn't a authoritative source on the Church?

[Fahran]

There are so many different ways to attack that statement, because it's completely untrue about me or Evola, but for the sake of brevity, I'm just going to point to the obvious that Neo-Hegelian American nationalism which is inspired by Feurbach is the complete opposite of what Evola believed or wanted.

The arguments you have made in favor of American Fascism appeared to have more in common with Gentile and Evola than Feuerbach, at least in so far as you didn't immediately reject the idea of an American volksgeist. I'm not familiar with any works in which Feuerbach discusses themes that I would consider Fascist or even Proto-Fascist. He's a Hegelian, of course, but he had more in common with Marx and Engels than Gentile, and most of his translated works had more to do with embracing Spinoza and rejecting theism. Evola despising America for its modernism and liberalism doesn't mean y'all aren't both starting with similar ideas and notions. You do reject the idea of a volk ostensibly.

Beyond that, however, this doesn't address my initial criticism of your argument against OEP. You were alleging that he was a white supremacist because he objected to your characterization of a white supremacist state. That's a non sequitur, and a bad one at that. He wasn't defending white supremacy or race-based chattel slavery. He was arguing about the manufacture of corn and other such matters.

I did not enter the economic debate, or was even the one who brought up white nationalism. Conservative Morality did, and Fahran interjected that you weren't a white nationalist, and my response was relevant to her post. You then proceeded with some banal tough guy act about how I was afraid of you over the internet. Now you're trying something else, and I have no clue what.

"He's in the ballpark for reasons" was a bad argument to make and it was a smear quite wholly detached from the argument that was occurring. It was inaccurate when CM made it, and it was inaccurate when you piled onto it. We should try to assume that people are arguing in good faith until we know this not to be the case.

[Joohan]

I really hate the usage of the word volk.

If you use the word volk, and you're not speaking in German, then you're larping.

[Fahran]

I really hate the usage of the word volk.

If you use the word volk, and you're not speaking in German, then you're larping.

It's used in philosophy a bit too much. We still use Latin in the same way.

[Joohan]

I really hate the usage of the word volk.

If you use the word volk, and you're not speaking in German, then you're larping.

It's used in philosophy a bit too much. We still use Latin in the same way.

There is a historical and religious undertone to using Latin a lot. For Europeans, Latin was the universal language - so it made sense for the most important works ( theological and philosophical literature ) in Latin, while less important pieces could be shoveled away in the local language.

Usage of the word volk, is just the German way of saying people, or more accurately, folk. The fact that we have English words for both it's intended use, and it's literal use, means that to use the German wording is pretty much just a nod to Nazism.

[Fahran]

Usage of the word volk, is just the German way of saying people, or more accurately, folk. The fact that we have English words for both it's intended use, and it's literal use, means that to use the German wording is pretty much just a nod to Nazism.

I wouldn't say it's intrinsically a nod to Nazism. In English, it's more of a nod to German philosophy's golden age in much the same way as the words zeitgeist and dasein.

[Joohan]

Usage of the word volk, is just the German way of saying people, or more accurately, folk. The fact that we have English words for both it's intended use, and it's literal use, means that to use the German wording is pretty much just a nod to Nazism.

I wouldn't say it's intrinsically a nod to Nazism. In English, it's more of a nod to German philosophy's golden age in much the same way as the words zeitgeist and dasein.

Zeitgeist doesn't have a single word equivalent in English, and nothing quite a strong as what Dasein is intended to mean. Volk, however, we have numerous words for - including a direct translation. It could be used to acknowledge the golden age of German philosophy - but all instances I've heard it used were in regards to national socialists.

[The Grims]

That's not really an authoritative source.

What do you mean the gay, atheist, advisor to socialist politicians, isn't a authoritative source on the Church?

If his research is good, it is.
So does it suck ?

[Fahran]

Zeitgeist doesn't have a single word equivalent in English, and nothing quite a strong as what Dasein is intended to mean. Volk, however, we have numerous words for - including a direct translation. It could be used to acknowledge the golden age of German philosophy - but all instances I've heard it used were in regards to national socialists.

You're not wrong. That's mostly because Neo-Nazis have spread across the world like a plague. I know a couple folks (I did that on purpose) who use it here without adhering to fascism. I tend to sprinkle Hebrew and Spanish/Ladino into my colloquial speech, so a bit of German or French doesn't perturb me too much, especially when it's mostly confined to philosophy or aesthetics.

If his research is good, it is.
So does it suck ?

One source stated that it was difficult to determine when Martel was trafficking in fact or hearsay. I'd take his arguments with a grain of salt.

[Joohan]

What do you mean the gay, atheist, advisor to socialist politicians, isn't a authoritative source on the Church?

If his research is good, it is.
So does it suck ?

Is it thought? How exactly did he determine from his interviews that 4/5ths of college are gay?

[Confederate States of German America]

That's rather rich coming from someone who jumped into an economics debate to talk about White Nationalism. Tell me, did you choose to be deliberately obtuse or did the facts of the argument really confuse you that bad?

I did not enter the economic debate, or was even the one who brought up white nationalism. Conservative Morality did, and Fahran interjected that you weren't a white nationalist, and my response was relevant to her post. You then proceeded with some banal tough guy act about how I was afraid of you over the internet. Now you're trying something else, and I have no clue what.

...So in other words I was exactly right or you are unable to read what you jumped into. Either way doesn't look good on yah.

[Confederate States of German America]

So any evidence things were actually better for the average person? Hmm?
Even by your own claims they were not.
So even if we accept your claims 100% you still must concede that point.

Only someone who didn't read or is an illiterate individual could claim such.

lso read your own sources!
“We also find that the South was initially much richer than the North on the eve of Revolution, but then suffered a severe reversal of fortune, so that by 1840 its white population was already poorer than free Northerners. In terms of inequality, our estimates suggest that American colonists had much more equal incomes than did households in England and Wales around 1774. Indeed, New England and the Middle Colonies appear to have been more egalitarian than anywhere else in the measureable world. Income inequality rose dramatically between 1774 and 1860, especially in the South.”
https://www.nber.org/papers/w18396.pdf
Thank you. You proved my point.

If your point was that you are incapable of anything beyond cherry picking, sure. As I pointed out in the post, if you control for slavery, this isn't the case.

Even with inequality similar, (but rising much faster in the South) the GDP per capita difference was actually significant. You lied.

Only if you completely failed to read or are incapable of reading, sure. My source makes no such claim.

The Confederacy having a large government (you did not actually show it was well run) does not in anyway prove it was actually well run.
And says nothing about how well Southern state governments were run.

Because this wasn't a point brought up. Please, try to remember what you state rather than moving all over the place.

And okay your data says 10% illiterate instead of 20%.
There could be various reasons for that, (especially given the are 10 years apart, but regardless it was still way worse than the illiteracy rate in New England. Proving the southern governments were not providing a comprehensive education system.
Your data still proves education was inferior.

Only if you didn't read or are illiterate. My source states 10% were illiterate at the national level, again, please do try to have an understanding before attempting to post.

Even though by 1860 the railway system in the South has improved, it was still in many cases disjointed and inferior to the North. You talk of miles per capita, but miles per area also matters if you want it actually fully connected.

..Which doesn't match up with what you're claiming at all.

Chattanooga is a still a long ways from New Orleans.
Of course this caused major logistical issues during the war.

The same way Ohio is a long ways from Chicago; please do try to make coherent points.

And you keep posting that one table. Okay, yes it appears, including the “upper South” (which again was very socially and economic different than the Deep South and a large portion rejected the CSA) corn, referring to maize here, production was not that different.
My source concurs.
Even by your source southern production of maize was not that much higher.
Mine is from 1860, yours 1859. So it seems by 1860 the relatively small gap was gone.

Are you even trying to argue at this point?

Problem is your source does not allocate the “other grains”, and my source shows the vast majority of the 400 goes to the North.
So your source does not contradict mine. It just bizarrely on allocates two agricultural products (cotton and corn) and does not allocate the rest. Who is cherry picking now?
Why did it not allocate “other grains”.

Again, only if you didn't read or are incapable of reading.

So how about we do it. 402+300 (702) > 437+100+5 (542).

So allocate the vast majority of that 400 “other grain” to the North, and clearly the north is producing much more agriculture!

Nope, read the source again.

[Novus America]

So any evidence things were actually better for the average person? Hmm?
Even by your own claims they were not.
So even if we accept your claims 100% you still must concede that point.

Only someone who didn't read or is an illiterate individual could claim such.

lso read your own sources!
“We also find that the South was initially much richer than the North on the eve of Revolution, but then suffered a severe reversal of fortune, so that by 1840 its white population was already poorer than free Northerners. In terms of inequality, our estimates suggest that American colonists had much more equal incomes than did households in England and Wales around 1774. Indeed, New England and the Middle Colonies appear to have been more egalitarian than anywhere else in the measureable world. Income inequality rose dramatically between 1774 and 1860, especially in the South.”
https://www.nber.org/papers/w18396.pdf
Thank you. You proved my point.

If your point was that you are incapable of anything beyond cherry picking, sure. As I pointed out in the post, if you control for slavery, this isn't the case.

Even with inequality similar, (but rising much faster in the South) the GDP per capita difference was actually significant. You lied.

Only if you completely failed to read or are incapable of reading, sure. My source makes no such claim.

The Confederacy having a large government (you did not actually show it was well run) does not in anyway prove it was actually well run.
And says nothing about how well Southern state governments were run.

Because this wasn't a point brought up. Please, try to remember what you state rather than moving all over the place.

And okay your data says 10% illiterate instead of 20%.
There could be various reasons for that, (especially given the are 10 years apart, but regardless it was still way worse than the illiteracy rate in New England. Proving the southern governments were not providing a comprehensive education system.
Your data still proves education was inferior.

Only if you didn't read or are illiterate. My source states 10% were illiterate at the national level, again, please do try to have an understanding before attempting to post.

Even though by 1860 the railway system in the South has improved, it was still in many cases disjointed and inferior to the North. You talk of miles per capita, but miles per area also matters if you want it actually fully connected.

..Which doesn't match up with what you're claiming at all.

Chattanooga is a still a long ways from New Orleans.
Of course this caused major logistical issues during the war.

The same way Ohio is a long ways from Chicago; please do try to make coherent points.

And you keep posting that one table. Okay, yes it appears, including the “upper South” (which again was very socially and economic different than the Deep South and a large portion rejected the CSA) corn, referring to maize here, production was not that different.
My source concurs.
Even by your source southern production of maize was not that much higher.
Mine is from 1860, yours 1859. So it seems by 1860 the relatively small gap was gone.

Are you even trying to argue at this point?

Problem is your source does not allocate the “other grains”, and my source shows the vast majority of the 400 goes to the North.
So your source does not contradict mine. It just bizarrely on allocates two agricultural products (cotton and corn) and does not allocate the rest. Who is cherry picking now?
Why did it not allocate “other grains”.

Again, only if you didn't read or are incapable of reading.

So how about we do it. 402+300 (702) > 437+100+5 (542).

So allocate the vast majority of that 400 “other grain” to the North, and clearly the north is producing much more agriculture!

Nope, read the source again.

So where is the evidence things actually were better in the South? Still waiting?

Though it appears you have given up at this point, you just say “No!” Without offering any explanation.
“by 1840 its white population was already poorer than free Northerners.”
Umm that is controlling for slavery. Notice it says white Southerners!
Besides the fact you need to cover for the problems with slavery really says something.

Point is your claim that the CSA government was big, does not actually support life in the South was better.

Oh I will concede I missed that part. So illiteracy was 10% at the National level.
20% in the South!

Oh wait... read that again.
Clearly the shitty education system if the South is dragging down the National numbers.
If the South is above the National average in illiteracy, obviously the North must be below the National average to offset it.

Yes Ohio is a long way to Chicago but it had a better rail connection.

“Few of the 100 railroads that existed in the South prior to 1861 were more than 100 miles in length.
The lines of competing railroads rarely met, even if they ran through the same town. The railroads also lacked a standard gauge, so that trains of different companies ran on tracks anywhere from four feet to six feet wide. Anything that needed to be transferred from one railroad to another had to be hauled across town and loaded onto new freight cars.”
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/arti ... onfederacy

All you mention is the length of track.
The South did have a good bit of track, though far less than the North.
But it did not make a coherent rail network, especially in the Deep South.
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/arti ... onfederacy

Now I did read your table. It quite clearly only allocates for cotton and corn (maize).
Obviously the South did produce more cotton, and according to your source, including the Upper South (which again was economically and socially different than the rest) produced a bit more corn (maize) although not that much more.
Okay.

Your source than says the US overall produced 400 bushels or bales of other grain.
But it does not allocate these between North and South.
Again the Northern adavantage in other grains (wheat and oats)clearly offsets the relatively small southern advantage in corn. Do the math.

[/quote]

See?
No allocation for other grains. Yet other grains made up a lot.
The Northern advantage in other grains easily offsets the relatively small southern advantage in corn.

[Volkari]

The arguments you have made in favor of American Fascism appeared to have more in common with Gentile and Evola than Feuerbach,

Have you ever actually read anything by Evola? Because the books written by him makes plain his contempt for Gentile's philosophy and the Gentilians of Fascist Italy. He expressly indicts their (and mine) view of what the Fascist state should be in one of his autobiographies:

The conclusion has effectively been the tendency of so-called 'pan-corporatism' expressed especially by some intellectuals of a Gentilian orientation at the corporative conference that was held at Ferrara in 1932. In this line there were those who could conceive of a type of corporative Communism ("proprietary corporatism" more or less under the control of the state) and who favoured the dissolution of the Party as an institution, to be replaced by a purely trade union/corporatist state.

I'm not familiar with any works in which Feuerbach discusses themes that I would consider Fascist or even Proto-Fascist. He's a Hegelian, of course, but he had more in common with Marx and Engels than Gentile, and most of his translated works had more to do with embracing Spinoza and rejecting theism.

Feuerbach's statement

"God is nothing else than human: he is the outward projection of a human's inward nature."

Is one that is mirrored both in Croce and Gentile's philosophies that human institutions such as religions are creations of the creative human spirit, and I've stated that I see the state as the outward projection of man's inner nature, purified from accidental and idiosyncratic qualities.

Evola despising America for its modernism and liberalism doesn't mean y'all aren't both starting with similar ideas and notions. You do reject the idea of a volk ostensibly.

Are Evola and SJW's the same then, because both reject the notion of the volk? If you throw the reasoning and worldview behind beliefs out of the equation, then you reach truly absurd logical conclusions. Evola rejects the concept of the volk because it conflicts with his aristocratic and mystic philosophy that wants to return to a mythic age of god-kings and heroes. I reject the concept of a volk because I don't think such a thing has ever existed and all such notions only serve to divide Americans on their ethnic, geographical, and cultural origins.

Beyond that, however, this doesn't address my initial criticism of your argument against OEP.

Because I don't care about OEP, I care about myself and asinine reasoning to support the notion that I'm ideologically similar to people I would've beaten senseless had I been alive in 1930's Italy.

[Nea Byzantia]

All disagreement can easily erupt into disunity. There's a reason why leftist groups, which tend towards the academic, are infamous for constantly splitting. The heretic, as the saying goes, is worse than an unbeliever.

The Japanese Empire was totalitarian but distinctly not fascist.



Fascism is distinctly revolutionary, oriented towards change and violence, and built on precepts that necessarily preclude dissent, even if Giovanni Gentile thought otherwise.

The Strasserists were purged precisely because they posed a disagreement. There's a reason they were purged so soon after the Nazis took power - once they controlled a section of society, they had no tolerance for dissent. The idea of a leftist coup in Nazi Germany is bullshit propaganda that was hardly taken seriously even at the time. The Night Of The Long Knives was not a defensive measure. And furthermore, the idea that dissenting ideas about religion were tolerated in the upper ranks of the Nazi hierarchy presumes that there was a position to dissent from. Hitler was little more than an opportunist when it came to religion, and his inner circle of corulers were not of one mind.

Sorry for the short response. Shitty week.

Im back, and this time with a computer! Now I can give a better response.

Now, in regards to Giovanni Gentile - he is by far the most renowned and infamous confirmed fascist philosopher ( not counting people who might only be speculatively called fascists like Evola ) - but it would be a mistake to assume that he was the creator of fascism, or that all fascist theory is derived from his works. Like Karl Marx, he is accredited for laying into words the first major piece of literature in regards to the ideology, but like Marx he didn't actually create the ideology. Fascism had existed in a variety of forms since the beginning of beginning of the 20th century: Action Francaise in France, the syndicalism of Georges Sorel, the Italian Nationalist Association of Italy, Spanish national syndicalism - all of these groups and theories existed prior Gentile's publication of The Doctrine of Fascism.

Even after the publication, there were numerous ideologues who, though fascist, held different and varying opinions in regards to many of Gentile's positions. Carl Schmitt for example. Gentile stated that, History does not travel backwards, but Schmitt purposed in Political Theology ( name of an essay, he's German so not very creative ) that, " all significant concepts of the modern theory of the state are secularized theological concepts " - which in turn would necessitate significant influence from the past. Like wise, Gentile posited the state creates the nation, but then Corneliu Codreanu stated ( I think it was a speech, can't cite which particular one ), " The state is simply a garment to clothe the body of the nation. We can make a new, luxurious, expensive garment, but it will be useless if it covers a body which is worn out, destroyed by moral and physical gangrene " Here Codreanu clearly posits that it is the nation which creates and governs the state, not the other way around.

Giovanni Gentile was an excellent fascist thinker - but he was not the supreme authority of fascism. Like he himself said in regards to fascism, " That is to say, it rejects the idea of a doctrine suited to all times and to all people. " Gentile was an Italian fascist, and his work reflected the flavor of Italian fascism - but, just like you state, he was often ignored by the fascist government of Italy.

I still posit that fascism is not concerned with perpetual violence, and that Gentile's writings on the matter was almost certainly the influence of the futurists, ( the influence is pretty clear in The Futurist Manifesto, written 23 years prior to the Doctrine of Fascism).

Why would you not consider the Japanese Empire to be fascist? Certainly different when compared to their European counterparts, but mirroring them in many ways - more fitted to the culture and traditions of Japan.

Edit:

Almost forgot: the dissent thing.

Look, in hindsight, it was pretty unlikely that the SA and leftist nazis were going to start a revolution - but it wasn't so clear at the time. It would be a few years into the regime before the SA and strasserists were purged - during which plenty of debate had gone on between the conservative and revolutionary wing of the NSDAP. The purge didn't occur until it was thought that Rohm and the SA were planning a coup.

So would you consider National Socialism to be the same as Italian or Spanish Fascism? Or are those different ideologies from one another? I only ask because as I understand it, Franco and Mussolini were not huge fans of Hitler. They were willing to work with him; but they certainly weren't best of friends, at least on a personal level.

I definitely agree that the Japanese Empire had its own ideology.

[Joohan]

Im back, and this time with a computer! Now I can give a better response.

Now, in regards to Giovanni Gentile - he is by far the most renowned and infamous confirmed fascist philosopher ( not counting people who might only be speculatively called fascists like Evola ) - but it would be a mistake to assume that he was the creator of fascism, or that all fascist theory is derived from his works. Like Karl Marx, he is accredited for laying into words the first major piece of literature in regards to the ideology, but like Marx he didn't actually create the ideology. Fascism had existed in a variety of forms since the beginning of beginning of the 20th century: Action Francaise in France, the syndicalism of Georges Sorel, the Italian Nationalist Association of Italy, Spanish national syndicalism - all of these groups and theories existed prior Gentile's publication of The Doctrine of Fascism.

Even after the publication, there were numerous ideologues who, though fascist, held different and varying opinions in regards to many of Gentile's positions. Carl Schmitt for example. Gentile stated that, History does not travel backwards, but Schmitt purposed in Political Theology ( name of an essay, he's German so not very creative ) that, " all significant concepts of the modern theory of the state are secularized theological concepts " - which in turn would necessitate significant influence from the past. Like wise, Gentile posited the state creates the nation, but then Corneliu Codreanu stated ( I think it was a speech, can't cite which particular one ), " The state is simply a garment to clothe the body of the nation. We can make a new, luxurious, expensive garment, but it will be useless if it covers a body which is worn out, destroyed by moral and physical gangrene " Here Codreanu clearly posits that it is the nation which creates and governs the state, not the other way around.

Giovanni Gentile was an excellent fascist thinker - but he was not the supreme authority of fascism. Like he himself said in regards to fascism, " That is to say, it rejects the idea of a doctrine suited to all times and to all people. " Gentile was an Italian fascist, and his work reflected the flavor of Italian fascism - but, just like you state, he was often ignored by the fascist government of Italy.

I still posit that fascism is not concerned with perpetual violence, and that Gentile's writings on the matter was almost certainly the influence of the futurists, ( the influence is pretty clear in The Futurist Manifesto, written 23 years prior to the Doctrine of Fascism).

Why would you not consider the Japanese Empire to be fascist? Certainly different when compared to their European counterparts, but mirroring them in many ways - more fitted to the culture and traditions of Japan.

Edit:

Almost forgot: the dissent thing.

Look, in hindsight, it was pretty unlikely that the SA and leftist nazis were going to start a revolution - but it wasn't so clear at the time. It would be a few years into the regime before the SA and strasserists were purged - during which plenty of debate had gone on between the conservative and revolutionary wing of the NSDAP. The purge didn't occur until it was thought that Rohm and the SA were planning a coup.

So would you consider National Socialism to be the same as Italian or Spanish Fascism? Or are those different ideologies from one another? I only ask because as I understand it, Franco and Mussolini were not huge fans of Hitler. They were willing to work with him; but they certainly weren't best of friends, at least on a personal level.

I definitely agree that the Japanese Empire had its own ideology.

Good question ( off topic, despite not being a fascist myself, I seem to do a lot of apologetics for it - I am aware of the irony ) - fascism, because it emphasizes nationalism/patriotism, and all nations are intrinsically different, fascism is different in every nation. German national socialism, and Italian fascism were both fascist ideologies - but not the same ideology. They were each their own nation's organic interpretation of fascism. Spanish Fascism ( Falangism ) was Spain's interpretation of fascism - though Franco was not himself a Falangist, nor his regime. He was more of an Authoritarian Conservative than a falangist - though many of his supporters were.

Japan, though there is some debate, I would say was a fascist state. They were certainly unique on their take of the ideology, but this was due to the great differences between their culture and that of their European counterparts. Theirs was a uniquely Japanese form of fascism. I would define it as such, as it possessed all the necessary tenants of a fascist state: Supreme leader, single party/faction rule, mixed economy, militarism, spiritual basis, and patriotism.

[Nea Byzantia]

So would you consider National Socialism to be the same as Italian or Spanish Fascism? Or are those different ideologies from one another? I only ask because as I understand it, Franco and Mussolini were not huge fans of Hitler. They were willing to work with him; but they certainly weren't best of friends, at least on a personal level.

I definitely agree that the Japanese Empire had its own ideology.

Good question ( off topic, despite not being a fascist myself, I seem to do a lot of apologetics for it - I am aware of the irony ) - fascism, because it emphasizes nationalism/patriotism, and all nations are intrinsically different, fascism is different in every nation. German national socialism, and Italian fascism were both fascist ideologies - but not the same ideology. They were each their own nation's organic interpretation of fascism. Spanish Fascism ( Falangism ) was Spain's interpretation of fascism - though Franco was not himself a Falangist, nor his regime. He was more of an Authoritarian Conservative than a falangist - though many of his supporters were.

Japan, though there is some debate, I would say was a fascist state. They were certainly unique on their take of the ideology, but this was due to the great differences between their culture and that of their European counterparts. Theirs was a uniquely Japanese form of fascism. I would define it as such, as it possessed all the necessary tenants of a fascist state: Supreme leader, single party/faction rule, mixed economy, militarism, spiritual basis, and patriotism.

Fair enough.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

What is the opinion of right-wingers on this thread about capital punishment? More specifically execution.

I do believe that some people do deserve to die, but I also believe that such execution should be quick to prevent unnecessary suffering. Hanging, the Guillotine, and Lethal injection are the three methods of execution I'd support; however, I am starting to lean towards supporting the abolition of capital punishment due to the outright monetary cost of it.

[Novus America]

What is the opinion of right-wingers on this thread about capital punishment? More specifically execution.

I do believe that some people do deserve to die, but I also believe that such execution should be quick to prevent unnecessary suffering. Hanging, the Guillotine, and Lethal injection are the three methods of execution I'd support; however, I am starting to lean towards supporting the abolition of capital punishment due to the outright monetary cost of it.

I generally am reluctant to support capital punishment because it cannot be reversed.
False convictions, while rare, can occur.

I think it should generally only be for cases where the convicted has show they cannot be safely keep in prison, for example multiple escape attempts, attacking guards, continuing to run and direct criminal enterprises while in prison, and the like.

And because this requires proof of further wrongdoing after conviction, it means a false conviction is extremely unlikely.