School Poems by Melontyp

Montenegrin Dreaming by Melontyp

Various Poems and Thoughts written down during 3 Weeks of School

During School, I was freezing. When finally that blessed Midday came, I rushed
down the Mountain in Übermensch Speed to a wonderful Restaurant. After that,
I came back as a tired man from running up and down to School that lies on a
fucking Mountain.

Rauf! Rauf auf dem Berg.
Meine Beine tuhen weh aber das is mir egal

Every day when I rise from my Bed, I take a Shower. Although, no matter how
good I clean myself, I never felt truly clean from all the filth I get from School.
The dirt I get from sitting 3 Weeks in some dead Building cannot be cleaned by
daily Showers.

Da Gorilla woosh
He flyin weee
Uauauau collect da Banana wosh weee

Too long! Too long! My Hair is tickling my Ears! I cannot control it anymore. To
enforce rule over my Hair, yes. To enforce Discipline over myself, my desires and
my hair yes yes yes.

The colour Yellow is cursed. Flickering. Glowing, turning from 2D to 3D. I hope
only my Eyes are fooling me, someone call a painter

Wearing my Pants feel like someone cutting my Leg with a Razer. Someone
pleas free from my Pants.

I walk into School, I don’t see cute Women. I walk on the Street, I see cute
Women. What is this nonsense?

5 years ago I saw in the mirror a pathetic weak boy, with no Mass and no class.
Today when I look in the Mirror, I see a well formed young Man that can truly
call himself a good looking. In the Future, I will see a muscled Man that
extended himself with Machines

The other day on the Street I saw a very cute baby Shiba Dog. I have zero clue
what it does in Switzerland however, it approached me with playful delight but
sadly got pulled away by its Owners leash. Cute Dog.

Mishima! Mishima! Told me my Mind. This Man, I don’t know why but he takes
me, abducts me, and imprisons me with his Words. Is Japanese Imperialism
taking over my Mind? Why does Mishima interest me? Again and again my Boss
talks about his homosexuality and Retardation. Again and again I get myself
drunk with his Charm, his Words and his prideful Marching songs. That give
such a daring and adventurous feeling.

Is it worth it to break a Friends heart? Fucking Déjà vu I tell ya. Same Man
different Woman, I have already experienced that. I don’t want to lose a friend
for nothing. Fuck, fuck, fuck I should have learned, History is a bitch, I already
know exactly It won’t be the same anymore

.

A Leftist Confronts Fascism part 2: The Pre-Cum Baby of Nationalism and Socialism by Lain OS

Detail from Jose Clemente Orozco’s The Clowns of War Arguing in Hell, 1944

3 Pre-Cum Baby of Nationalism And Socialism

There is more to Fascism than Gentile. That would be kind of a reddit understanding of things. If you really look at it liberalism did not just pop up with Hobbes, Locke, Smith and Ricardo. German sociologist Werner Sombart finds a proto-Liberalism existing long ago in Italy saying things like “The idea of the modern state, I imagine, was born in the Italian tyrannies of the 13th and 14th centuries” and “Florentine cloth-making, perhaps the first capitalistically organized industry in the world”. Sombart even points to the position of natural law as a similarity with Liberalism. Now, what Sombart is pointing to is incredibly different from Liberalism he is not saying it’s the same, and we can also find proto-Liberal economics in Islamic medieval economic thought. Didn’t Machiavelli want like the goal of the Risorgimento: the creation of the Italian nation? With this proto-Liberalism and proto-Nationalism the “proto” part must be made clear. There is still very good reason we call Nationalism and Liberalism children of the enlightenment. We can’t say Machiavelli’s proto-Nationalism is the same as what would follow after the French revolution and Werner Sombart makes this clear in his book on German Socialism. So, when you speak of Mazzini, D’Annunzio, Sorel and Hegel you may say in some way proto-Fascist but not Fascist. Because of how Fascism was birthed you can call the father of Anarchism a proto-Fascist so proto-Fascist doesn’t mean much. And many of these proto-Fascists like D’Annunzio are much more respectable than the Fascism that would come after them. I will mostly talk about the birth out of syndicalism and we see that both Nazism and Fascism were born out of trad-unions. I quote a man who has been called the Marx of National Socialism Rudolf Jung;

“The unedifying conditions in the Pan-German movement, which was originally conceived of as a grass-roots movement, inevitably led to the evolution of a unique political and trade-unionist tendency. This tendency reached its consummation in 1904 with the founding of the ‘German Workers’ Party.’ In its principles, the thus-named Trautenau Programme, the party demanded – as the National Socialists do today – a partial socialization in the form of economic nationalization and provincialization.”

One would therefore be perfectly correct in regarding this program as a socialist one.

This birth in trad-unions and both have roots in France are but some of the similarities with Fascism and Nazism. They are kindred movements. The retarded Oswald Mosley went as far as to say that they are the same. However, speaking of Fascism and the more radical Syndicalism one may first point to Sorel and people like one of his most loyal followers Édouard Berth who moved to Nationalism and Royalism. What must be noted as Rocco put it “Fascism has created its own syndicalism.” he adds;

“The time has now come when class self-defense also must be replaced by state justice. To facilitate this change, Fascism has created its own syndicalism. The suppression of class self-defense does not mean the suppression of class defense which is an inalienable necessity of modern economic life. Class organization is a fact which cannot be ignored but it must be controlled, disciplined, and subordinated by the state. The syndicate, instead of being, as formerly, an organ of extra-legal defense, must be turned into an organ of legal defense which will become judicial defense as soon as labor conflicts become a matter of judicial settlement. Fascism therefore has transformed the syndicate, that old revolutionary instrument of syndicalistic socialists, into an instrument of legal defense of the classes both within and without the law courts. This solution may encounter obstacles in its development; the obstacles of malevolence, of suspicion of the untried, of erroneous calculation, etc., but it is destined to triumph even though it must advance through progressive stages.”

But how did we go from this radical Syndicalism to Fascist Corporatism? First, I said that Fascism is a form of Leftism, and that is made more clear if we look at its origins and its roots. This is were I disagree with my fellow leftist critics of Fascism. Fascism, and many of the other kindred Nationalist movements are forms of Leftism, but poor molested forms of Leftism. Fascists themselves will not like me saying this. You can see how Gentile describes the right and left in The Philosophic Basis of Fascism. Edmondo Rossoni before rightfully turning on Mussolini said in The Significance of Fascist Syndicalism “Fascism was right to remove all meaning from the old political jargon of ‘right’ and ‘left.'” Mussolini said speaking on Senator Albertini “In my eyes the whole political and journalistic terminology – Right Wing, Left wing, Conservatism, Aristocracy, Democracy – is so much useless verbiage.” Fascism wanted to take from the left and the right but I hold that it best fits in the camp of the left. And many Fascists of the time would agree with me that it came from the left. This leftist leniency can be seen more clearly in its first steps. To show that it was not a movement of the right I quote historian Eugen Weber;

“The first Fascio di combattimmento was set up in Milan on march 23, 1919. The ideas which it claimed to stand for were far from reactionary. […] The Fascios wanted to dissociate themselves from the classical ‘red’ revolution, but their own program was almost as radical: they would put an end to the monarchy; abolish the Senate, the aristocracy, compulsory military service, banks and stock exchanges; confiscate unproductive revenues; attack the money power; decentralize the government; protect and educate the poor. although Mussolini’s Popolo d’Italia changed its subtitle from ‘Socialist Daily’ to ‘Producers Daily’ it continued to support the workers revolutionary agitation, and Mussolini himself claimed he had remained a Socialist.”

Eugen Weber argues the same is true for other kindred movements. Speaking on Hungarism he says “In many respects these nationalists of Szege could be described as leftist, and they might so have described themselves if the term had not been smeared for them by its associations with Socialism, internationalism, and Jews.” Marcel Bucard viewed that Fascism’s spirit grew from the Left because “being the opposite of marxism, it is much nearer socialism — understood in the sense of social justice — than it is to bourgeois conservatism which it holds in horror.” I hold that many of these movements were leftist, but not good examples of leftism. Nationalism itself you can say came from the French revolution, and the truth is never so simple but this is true. Eugen Weber pins Nationalism to the Jacobins. It was this kind of nationalism that Fascism was a continuation of, and French Fascists like Valois viewed Fascism as a continuation of the Jacobins. If there is anything good to be said about Fascism and its kindred movements like Nazism it is that it was the logical conclusion of Nationalism (which is actually a weakness).

Thus we reach a point my fellow leftist critics of Fascism have trouble with. They do not get how complex history can be, or even to do history. We can look at their view of something like The Night of the Long Knives. They look to the fact people like Ernst Röhm and Gregor Strasser were killed then ignore that people like Robert Ley were not. Hitler as Rosenberg speaks of in his Memoirs did not want Strasser to be killed. Then also conservatives and reactionaries like Edgar Julius Jung and others who where loyal to Vice-Chancellor Franz von Papen were also killed in The Night of the Long Knives. The online right is just as bad at history however. When they create a formula like “high-low vs middle” and try to universalize that, or in many of the statements from Mike from Imperium Press in an interview from pretentious Irish twink Keith Woods (you can see here). Keith Woods has his own incoherent video on nationalism and closeted femboy Giuli 333 did a video on nationalism where he doesn’t even defend nationalism. And their definitions of nationalism do not work at all. Nationalism itself having many Leftist implications. I would like to quote Eugen Weber;

“Men like Maurice Barrès in France described themselves as National Socialist. They realized that national unity implied social justice, that national power implied the planned use of national resources, that national harmony might mean the equalization or the redistribution of wealth and opportunity and economic power. Being doctrinaire, they did not feel the need to maintain the established order at all costs. Putting the nation first and property second, they found their theories were leading them toward Jacobinism — even while the official left-wing heirs of Jacobins were moving in the opposite direction.”

Race-mixing Danish neo-nazi Povl Riis-Knudsen wrote National Socialism: A Left Wing Movement. A few points may be weak however his definition of right and left, and his main argument is strong. I take this a step further and say that nationalism in it conclusions is leftist. However, this being true it is still understandable why nationalism would be attractive to right-wingers and conservatives like Maurras, Bismarck and Burke. Something that should be noted speaking of that is that for example Bismark flouted the dreams of many German Nationalist for the sake of the Hohenzollern family. If one looks at Nationalism and especially Fascism and National Socialism one sees that is was the right-wing from outside and from within that as stunted Nationalism. This can be shown in the last chapter of Hitler’s Revolution by Richard Tedor, and this also shows one of weaknesses of National Socialism;

“Unlike the Bolsheviks, Hitler did not oppress the aristocracy to promote labor. He personally considered the role of the nobility ‘played out’. It would have to prove itself to regain its former prestige, but only by competing against other classes within the parameters of the Reich’s social programs. A tract published for officers declared, ‘The new nobility of the German nation, which is open to every German, is nobility based on accomplishment.’ Many from the country’s titled families accepted the challenge. They enrolled in the NSDAP or the SS or served with valor in the armed forces during the war. A small percentage, concentrated in the army general staff and in the diplomatic corps, resented the social devaluation of their high-born status. Rather than contribute to the new Germany, they conspired against her. Together with a self-absorbed minority of misguided intellectuals, clerics, financiers and Marxists, they intrigued to bring down both the National Socialist government and their country as well.”

Hitler kept this reactionary class alive and so many and some even under the false view of being better nationalists stabbed him in the back (the fact of their class makes them worse nationalists). However, it was not just the right-wing from the outside but also inside. Otto Wagener in his Memoirs shows things like how it was Göring who convinced Hitler to put in the Liberal Schacht. Otto Wagener doesn’t blame Hitler for a lot of the things that went wrong in Nazi Germany but subverts like Himmler and Göring. The blame on Hitler, and I would go as far as to say that the mass genocide that happened under Nazi Germany as evil and inhumane as they were, can’t be put be put fully at Hitler’s door. We have quotes from Himmler himself saying he is acting on his own and not on the word of Hitler. We will see subsequently that, aside from several Gauleiter and other insignificant personalities, such as Ribbentrop, Funk, Frank, Bormann, and so on — in the main three men, acting according to their own diabolical characters, assumed the terrible guilt of taking Adolf Hitler’s thoughts and conversations as well as his actions and distorting or interpreting them quite unnaturally and covertly exploiting them for immoral and illegal, even criminal, actions, at times even for their personal advantage. These three men are Göring, Himmler, and Goebbels. Göring’s pathological delusions of grandeur grew into megalomania, accompanied by a persecution complex, which allowed him to turn to fraud and the killing of hundreds. Himmler’s mongrel mentality and purely mechanical intelligence interpreted his task — which was to safeguard the regime and the person of the Führer — as carte blanche for orders and actions that ran counter to every legal concept and bordered on the barbarous — yes, in the end even culminated in inconceivable mass murders. And Goebbels covertly worked as an agitator, whose scheming mind knew how to influence the Führer falsely. He turned the deliberate lie and defamation into legal methods of propaganda and national delusion, thus making sure that the incompetence and errors of the regime and of his men were veiled from the public by a mist of verbiage and statistics. Even if Goebbels was far from the right-wing of the Nazis I think this shows a right-wing corruption from within.

I think all Neo-Fascists can agree that Mussolini made far too many compromises. However, the point I am making is that the right-wing was just as much an enemy if not more so than the reds. These were leftist movements, but for forms of leftism. It may also be said that German Nazism was less dynamic and less progressive than Italian Fascism from its start. However, both were modernist, progressive and revolutionary. It may still be said that the birth of French Proto-Fascism as this meeting of Nationalism and Socialism reads like and was a meeting of left and right, and less so when you reach Italy. From Eugen Weber’s article Nationalism, Socialism and National-Socialism in France;

“The first meeting of socialist and nationalist seems to have occurred in the pages of a short-lived periodical, La Cocarde, which Barrès published from September 1894 to March 1895. It grouped such unlikely companions as Rene Boylesve and Charles Maurras (both later of the Academie Francaise), Frederic Amouretti, Camille Mauclair (contributor, during the last war, to l’Appel of Pierre Costantini’s Ligue francaise), and extreme syndicalists like Augustin Hamon and Fernand Pelloutier. As resolutely social as they were national, we find the editorial committee (Cocarde, Jan. 17, 1895) greeting President Casimir-Perier’s resignation as ‘one of the moments of the Social Revolution that is slowly taking place. […] and whose accomplishment no power can henceforth prevent.'”

This already starts to read like a meeting of left and right. At times as I will show the birth of French Proto-Fascism reads like a movement from left to right. I would first like to take more from Eugen Weber to show more of this meeting of left and right along with the birth of Fascist Corporatism;The appreciation of the young admirer, then an active follower of Charles Maurras, reveals one characteristic of these nationalists’ social concern; interested above all in national unity, they reject class war in favor of class integration, without, however, approving a capitalist and bourgeois order they despise. It was this rejection of bourgeois order and bourgeois democracy-that provided the basis of the next significant rapprochement which took place at first in the ranks and the tendencies of the royalist Action francaise, then between the monarchists and the followers of Georges Sorel

This rejection of class war for nationalism may be said to be the birth of Fascist Corporatism. Many of the old views of this anarchistic socialism can be seen in Édouard Berth’s attack on a straw-man of Anarchism that opens with “the first thing that must disappear is the State” he then will go on to say;Today it is notorious that revolutionary patriotism is dead; something else has arisen to take its place, a new feeling: the class idea which has replaced the idea of the fatherland, defining the split between the people on the one side and the State and democracy on the other. For with the appearance of revolutionary syndicalism a strange opposition has arisen between democracy and socialism, between the citizen and the producer, an opposition that has assumed its crudest as well as its most abstract form in the resolute rejection of the idea of the fatherland, which is identified with the idea of the State.

Édouard Berth however would not always hold this view and we may look to his article Satellites de la Ploutocratie to see how many of these change. Before I bring up the things I want to talk about in Berth’s article I should move back to Eugen Weber to show bits that read like a movement from left to right. Weber writes “This was followed on September 29, 1910, by an interview with Sorel, in which the latter declared his turn towards ‘reaction.'” Here we see just how much nationalism especially the Reactionary and Royalist nationalism of Maurras molested syndicalism. We can see this even more when Eugen Weber speaks of Édouard Berth; “Édouard Berth publishes Les Mefaits des Intellectuels, which reveals nationalists and syndicalists at one upon the necessity of destroying the capitalist regime, of restoring monarchy, and (on the way) of reconciling Sorel and and Maurras in ‘a new and fertile synthesis.'”

Édouard Berth’s Satellites de la Ploutocratie is not translated. The only “translation” that has been done is by H. R. Morgan (or as I call him HRT Morgan). A look to HRT Morgan’s twitter will truly show you what the Fascist new man looks like. HRT Morgan left little of the original article is left and anti-semitism and all that is left is a few random uninteresting quotes. He was done this with everything he has translated. However, you can find the original French online. Édouard Berth in Anarchism And Syndicalism may have said “revolutionary patriotism is dead”, but now he has changed his tune to “revolutionary patriotism is not so completely dead as our masters imagine;” He would now argue that those who ignore the national question must also ignore the class question;Moreover, if anti-patriotism wants to reason and remain consistent with itself, it leads straight to the negation of the class struggle, while wanting to affirm it more energetically . The need for class independence is itself based on a sentimental fact. Whoever finds the sentiment of national independence illogical must find the sentiment of class independence just as illogical.

Berth is right to go against class reductionism. There is more than class and intersectionality was right to point out that things like race, class, nationality and gender do not exist isolated. However, what Berth says here is nothing but mere rhetoric. And I do not think Berth would like it if I said that those who ignore the battle of trans people must also ignore the national question. These words may be said about a number of things, and is nothing more than mere rhetoric. More interestingly he shows this article, that is mostly about anti-pacifism, that shows the problem with the class collaborationism and nationalism (Mussolini would also say stuff like what Berth said here). However, Fascism moved to class collaborationism thanks to nationalism. With Fascism we see Nationalism with all of its strengths and weaknesses.“on the contrary, I would say, the workers have a fatherland even more than the bourgeois, whom one could consider as being the true ‘without a fatherland’; for the rich are the truly ‘uprooted’ who, everywhere in the world, wherever they find themselves, find themselves well, precisely thanks to their wealth; while the man of the people, the poor, out of place, uprooted, transplanted, given over to the double domination of capitalists and foreigners, is doubly enslaved and unhappy. In fact, in history, it is the rich classes who, most often, for an ignoble class interest, have sold the fatherland for gold, semper auro vendiderunt patriam, while the popular classes defended it with the most magnificent relentlessness.”

Berth does have a point. Fascist class collaborationism and thus Fascist Corporatism was in itself a paradox. It keeps an enemy which it hates, and that hates it. It wants to give more power to the proletariat, and hates the bourgeoisie. Yet, it wants to give both equal representation in production. Fascist Corporatism was the result of the radical anarchistic Socialism called Syndicalism being molested and demasculinized by Nationalism. Yet, the bourgeoisie which must be worked with is anti-national, and will work against the nation if it means larger capital. This was a fact which the fascist knew yet the principal was collaboration and compromise. And compromise is one way of saying you let the devil get his foot in the door.

I will now show this same meeting of Nationalism and Syndicalism in Italy. This is described well by William Welk professor of economics in the College of St. Thomas in 1938 in his book Fascist Economic Policy, and in The Italian Corporative State by Fausto Pitigliani in 1933. Both looking into Fascism and living during the time of Fascism, and Pitigliani himself an Italian Fascist.

We start before the first world war and the rivalry of the more radical Syndicalism and the weaker Christian Trade Unionist. These Catholic Trade Unionists took up a kind of Corporatism. Pitigliani points this out speaking on them saying that they “derived their sanctions from the well-known Encyclical Rerum Novarum of Pope Leo XIII issued in 1891.” Pitigliani would then go on to say in the same paragraph; “The Encyclical Rerum Novarum maintains the right of property and consequently rejects Socialism, but prescribes for the various social classes reciprocal duties with the object of effectively and permanently harmonizing their relations.” There is one more thing to be noted when Pitigliani speaks of these Catholic Trade Union;

“Catholic syndicalism further aimed at attaining internationalism which from the field of labour should extend to the political field through disarmament, international arbitration, etc.”

This also kinda brings me back to the interview from pretentious Irish twink Keith Woods, and I am not really attacking Keith Woods here. This is a comment Keith Woods made in a now privated video. I only bring it up because other people think the same. He says that it is important to understand the economics of Corporatism and how it came out of things like distributism. Keith Woods is also wrong to say that the end result is an organic traditional society. Fascist Corporatism grew in a bit of a rivalry of things akin to distributism. Moreover, there is nothing traditional about Fascism. It is better to speak of D’Annunzio and Syndicalism if we are going to speak of the birth of Fascist Corporatism.

On the other side you have the more radical and revolutionary Socialism. It was not until the leadership of Aruro Labriola and Augusto Turati that that socialist party started to progress having only six elected members in the Italian chamber in 1892, then to 32 in 1900 and soon after Labriola left 40 members in 1910. Labriola it may be said would never unlike Augusto Turati’s turn to Fascism, but he left in 1906 to form his own independent labor movement. William Welk would note;Although this early socialist syndicalist movement never reached sizable proportions, its mention is important, for out of it evolved the Fascist syndicalism of a decade or so later.On the eve of the World War, in fact, the syndicalist movement founded by Labriola had attracted the attention of Italian nationalists. Inflamed with patriotism and with a desire for social regeneration, nationalist writers began to demand that Italian syndicalism ‘be freed from its Marxian leanings and be made to serve the national cause.’ When the world conflict broke out, a small company of patriotic syndicalists openly joined the nationalists in their pleas for Italy’s entry into the war. In this group were Filippo Corridoni, a young syndicalist of intensely nationalistic sentiments, Edmondo Rossoni, the future head of Fascist syndicalism, and the present leader of Italian Fascism, Benito Mussolini.

This movement was the same as Sergio Panunzio had called for. To quote Panunzio;“Italy needs not only a new economic but also a new political organization. The old syndicalism of the workers must leave its false proletarian exclusivism and join the national cause.”

Thus Panunzio would speak positively of Fascism;“The social originality of Fascism, rests in the fusion of proletarian syndicalism and nationalism. Mussolini, the born statesman, has succeeded in obtaining the fusion of these two ideological forces and in turning them to the use of the new Italian state.”

What made Syndicalism so weak to this movement, to nationalism, can be shown in a quote from Hubert Lagardelle “all the noble feelings which patriotism calls forth, heroism and self-sacrifice and unflinching obedience – the qualities which form the eternal foundation of life – will not cease to exist, but on the contrary, will continue to grow in the soul of the workers who are filled with the revolutionary spirit.” Syndicalism even when Anarchist or at the very least Anarchistic, cites itself as having similar drives to patriotism, and this can also be seen in Édouard Berth. Thus it was not hard to take up patriotism then Nationalism when you see that Nationalism has in it an Anti-Capitalism. So then Hubert Lagardelle like Berth found himself moving in a direction akin to Fascism. In taking Nationalism to its conclusion Fascism made radical syndicalism barely any more radical than the Christian Trade Unions it started in opposition with.

From this Nationalism came the doctrine of compromise, and compromise is one word for saying you let the devil get his foot in the door. Fascism turned compromise into what was mere necessary into a principal. It is not hard to see why Antonio Gramsci would say that the Fascist will soon compromise with the freemasons. The whole history of Italian Fascism is one of compromise ending with Mussolini in control of a mere German puppet state. Mussolini himself would note that this was his biggest mistake. That Fascists would turn on Nationalism itself was a dumb and almost satanic standpoint. First as I said before it is the Individualism of the peoples. Nationalism like Individualism looks too far into the particular. Nationalism can go two ways: one of brotherhood of independent nation states, which isn’t going to happen, or what history has shown it to do, the way of war and genocide. This is why I say Hegel gives a poor Nationalist reply to Kant in §333-334 of the Philosophy of Right. Kant wants to prevent war, and so, he wants a League of Nations to adjust and solve every dispute. Hegel holds that when the wills of nations can not be harmonized the only way now is war.

Thus the Nationalist Hegel proves right one of the attacks held by anti-nationalists like myself. Fascism and its kindred movements prove this also to be right. The genocide that took place under the Nazis is known to all. We can also speak of the genocide of Serbs carried out by the Ustaše. Fascism was born out of war, and Fascists speak romantically of war. And we can go on and on with more and more examples. The point is nationalism creates an other and an enemy, and the only way to respond to such an enemy soon becomes war and genocide. I don’t think I need to get into why they are both evil. Nationalism is also narcissistic and egoistic thus satanic. It puts itself first over all else.

Hegel was however right in saying that by “elevating above the universal the self-will of private particularity” one becomes evil. Nationalism is the individualism of the peoples and puts the particularity that is the nation first. Hegel himself on war shows he is somewhat hesitant to truly actualize the universal natural will on the geopolitical level, but if we actualize the universal natural will on the geopolitical level we move away from nationalism. Hegel keeps geopolitics as the game, where the strong do as they please and the weak suffer what they must. Thus nations will elevate their own self-will of private particularity above the universal natural will, and Kant wanted to prevent this.

The ideals of a universal moral law, of universal freedom, of universal truth and of the one true human race starts to spit at nationalism. Moral law to be moral law must be international, freedom must also be international and truth is international. Politics should have the international universal moral law as its goal not any particular nation state. Eugen Weber points out that nationalists have a tendency to move to relativism, but when they do that they also lose all moral ground to justify acting for the nation state.

And last we speak of D’Annunzio. D’Annunzio was a nationalist, but also one who formed the League of Fiume. This was a project for the creation of a League of Oppressed and had deep roots in D’Annunzio’s thought. This was a reply to the Wilsonian League of Nations which like the modern UN aims to perpetuate a corrupt and imperialist status quo. This could never play on the same level as the Wilsonian League of Nations but it does start to show how D’Annunzio was a more respectful figure than any Fascist, along with showing a slow movement away from D’Annunzio’s nationalism.

D’Annunzio was not a Fascist but in fact an Anti-Fascist. D’Annunzio had his impact on Fascism but an even greater impact on Anti-Fascism. It is known that D’Annunzio and Mussolini were not really buddies, but it goes deeper. Although throughout 1920 in Il Popolo d’Italia and after he had taken power, Mussolini had spoken out in favor of the occupation of Fiume, this does not mean that D’Annunzio was a Fascist. From the conflict of Fascists and Arditi, what is cited as first anti-fascist organization Arditi del Popolo emerged, born in June 1921 as a radical split from the Roman section of the nationalists Arditi d’Italia. But the break between D’Annunzio and the fascists was long before that. This break officially formalized by the legionary newspaper La Vigilia (now Fascists being called “slavers”) in the 1921 article To the legionaries. I would also like to qoute Argo Secondari;“As long as the fascists continue to burn the houses of the people, houses sacred to the workers, as long as the fascist murders the workers brother’s, as long as the fratricidal war continues. The arditi of Italy will have nothing in common with them. A deep furrow of blood in smoking rubble divides fascist and Arditi.”

I would like before my last words to speak of one little known Fascist text What is Fascism by Georges Valois. Valois here creates a vague and not too clear definition of Fascism, but also seems to hints that it is more of a movement that will be proved by what it does. It is for Valois a movement and idea coming out of historical necessity, and given time will prove itself. Fascism is dead now so it clearly was not the next step in human history, plus we have for some time been moving away from the time of Nationalism. And as far as what it did, a lot of compromise ending with Mussolini in control of a mere German puppet state. History has shown Valois was wrong to be so optimistic.

3.1 Last Words

If there is one word that could be said of Fascism that word would be degenerate. Ignore for a second how this word has been misused, and you will see it is a great word for Fascism. It took Hegelianism and degenerated it into a vulgar one-sided idealism. It took Syndicalism and watered it down. It took Fiumeians and stripped away its character. Fascism was also wrong to be Nationalist, and so many related to Fascism started to move away from Nationalism.

Fascism is not hard to take down, and could be done in less words than are here. Before I was done writing this, I was accused of looking too much at the online movement, and I think anyone looking at this will see that is false. The online so called “movement” was my motivation but it was not my goal. I normally don’t care too much to preach about my own personal views as I am little more than a retard on the internet who has read a few books. However, I wanted it to be clear and be known that I am not a Nationalist, and I am not a Fascist.

I am not a Nationalist or a Fascist as is seen from above. I view Fascism as degenerate looking to other doctrines and corrupting what they were. And that is all for now.

A Leftist Confronts Fascism: Gentilean Revolt Against Nature by Lain OS

1 Intro

Internet Fascist Cultured Thug stated in an interview with pretentious Irish twink Keith Woods (which can be seen here) that he would love to hear an honest critique of what he called “third positionism” (a gay post-war term that I hate to use). This may get one to ask how unread this man is, however it is not that Cultured Thug is unread but that he reads into things whatever he wants to read into them (as shown by his treatment of Werner Sombart citing one chapter and ignoring the ones before). There are many honest critiques of as CT calls it “third positionism” by people who have read the history and theory, just to think of a short one off the top of my head we have Varieties of Fascism by Eugen Weber. In fact I think CT would like this book as it is more about giving a history than an attack but attacks of fascism are given throughout.

It also does not help that that the attacks of anti-fascists have been so poor. The poor attacks made by anti-fascists have only strengthened fascist internet larpers. You have people like Umberto Eco who fail to attack fascism and go as far as to say things like the theory should never be looked at. Same with memes like “fascism is capitalism in decay”. All that only strengths the sewer made up of socially retarded closeted homosexuals (authoritarian fantasies being a product of pseudo-masculine repressed homosexuality). However, to say that you can’t find the honest attacks made by people who read the theory would mean that you never looked for it. The honest attack of fascism came not just from the left about also right with people like Augusto Del Noce (who was friends with fascist thinker Ugo Spirito).

It is not like Fascism or Nazism built an amazing doctrine, and so there is no need to lie to take it down. In fact as historian A. James Gregor pointed out in his study of nazi race theory for the time that Nordism was accepted it was only because they were desperate for an actual racial doctrine. The Nazis were desperate for the thing that “made National Socialism what it was: the theory of race.” The fact Nazism was desperate for an actual racial doctrine shows the quality of German National Socialism. It ended up adopting a view that was so autistic they had to reject it. Fascism also did not build any amazing doctrine. Its philosophy and its idealism was poor. Then there is also the fact that to be a “Fascist” or a “Nazi” is just a larp. Here in America calling yourself a Fascist or a Nazi has no meaning. George Lincoln Rockwell was not a Nazi, but something worse. Beyond his glowing connections he agrees with little of Nazism proper. One of Alfred Rosenberg’s few good takes is seen in his Memoirs when he speaks on Oswald Mosley, he says Nazi organizations outside Germany to be “oil on the fire of the existing propaganda against us” and also that Oswald Mosley should have not called himself a Fascist but should have built his own British movement. These were built for a specific time and place and not to be exported elsewhere.

Now, I have spent some time in online fascist circles and have come to the view that they are bad people. I have come to the view that it is nothing but a sewer full of rats. Absolutely disgusting people make up the so called movement. That is one of my motivations for making this. One problem however with attacking turd positionism as CT wants, is that you can’t. Beyond the fact it is a gay post-war term that shouldn’t be used, you can not write a take down of rightism or leftism (fascism I would say is a form of leftism). If I was to attack turd positionism for being nationalist even that would be untrue. In German National Socialism as pointed out in Hitler’s Revolution by Richard Tedor you start to get this idea of Pan-Europeanism. This was used by the Nazis to gain help for the war effort as Degrelle would state “We fought neither for Germany nor for Hitler, but for a much greater ideal; the creation of a united states of Europe,” However, also people like Himmler wanted to use the Pan-Europe idea in a Germany first way to dominate over the rest of Europe. Pan-Europeanism would become stronger post-war with people like Francis Parker Yockey and Oswald Mosley. Moreover in America they have not been nationalist; Ezra Pound sided with Italy in WWII, Yockey wanted to use the USSR to weaken America and the part-black Lawrence Dennis supported central America against US imperialism. José Antonio Primo de Rivera once attacked nationalism correctly saying that “nationalism is the individualism of the peoples.” And as I will get into there is an incompatibility between Gentile’s philosophy and Nationalism. Point is if I can’t say turd positionism is even nationalist there is not much I could ever say about it.

So, I will be mostly looking at Italian Fascism. I will also be looking more to theory than historical practice. It would be wrong to attack Marxism by first starting with the USSR, North Korea or Khmer Rouge (if anything the main problem Marxists face is not anything that happened in them but the fact they happened where they did). It would be best to start with theory as historical practice is something else. I will also be doing something like what Gentile does to Marxism. Gentile takes Marxism to its materialism and shows it to be a bad materialism almost more like an idealism. So I will be starting with its idealist base as everything else comes out of there. I will also have to explain Gentile’s philosophy as no one reads him.

2 Gentileian Revolt Against Nature

I will be doing something like what Herbert Marcuse of the Frankfurt School does in Reason and Revolution. He says things like “His philosophy, when judged by its content and not its language, has nothing to do with Hegel’s” and also stating on Hegel’s politics “There is no concept less compatible with Fascist ideology than that which founds the state on a universal and rational law that safeguards the interests of every individual, whatever the contingencies of his natural and social status” Marcuse gives what may be one of the most mixed attacks on fascism. It is good that he starts off pointing in the direction for a good honest attack on the fascist philosophy (better than most “intellectual” critics of fascism), but he could not help but take it into some absurd places and ends up accusing Gentile of similar crimes to those that he himself is guilty of. He for example states that Gentile was not truly an idealist because of his view of mind and body, and also that he was more like a positivist (without much of an explanation). For Italian Catholic Philosopher Augusto Del Noce and also the Marxist Diego Fusaro (And I will cite Fusaro as Gentile does Labriola) it is best to understand Gentile and also Fascism in relation to Marx, Hegel and Spaventa. Diego Fusaro gives in one quote an excellent description of actualism and its birth in one of his lectures (seen here);

“I agree that Gentile goes beyond Hegel, or at least does not coincide with Hegel. Gentile, following Spaventa’s steps, criticised what Spaventa had already criticised. In Hegel, the identification between thought and being is conceived in a static sense, as if it was already accomplished once and for all, as if this identity was indeed motionless, fetishised, we could almost say fixed. Whereas in Marx who is certainly an idealist but in more rigorous and radical terms, praxis considered as the foundation of reality, we nevertheless see no fixed identity of object and subject, because this identity is made dynamic through continuous renewal by praxis; praxis creates over and over a new relationship between subject and object. For this reason in ‘The Reform of Hegelian Dialectic’ Gentile’s intention is to revise Hegel by introducing the concept of action, Gentile’s version of praxis. Because the identity of being and thought cannot be seen as static, but only as dynamic; it is therefore not so much an identity of being and thought, but an identity of being and thinking in action, as there is no static identity of thought and being, but there is an identity of being and thinking in action, which by the very action of thinking defines being. So it is the action of doing that guarantees this identity of thought and being. I’m talking about the well-known distinction Gentile makes between a thought that is thought and a thinking about thought. A thought that is thought is a thought objectified, and it manifests as the objects that surround us. We never encounter any objects disconnected from the thought-action that created them; we only have objects that have been thought, objects that are the outcome of our thoughts.”

The Materialism of Marx is ironically one of the most important forms of Idealism in the creation of Actualism. So we must speak of Gentile’s work The Philosophy of Marx. I have myself edited the translation of this work from Zoltanous HN. Fusaro points to the similarity of the pure act of thinking to praxis. However, praxis for Gentile in Marx takes a much deeper meaning than the mere getoffyourassism that you hear from the Internet left on the topic of praxis. For Gentile of we give things like the Theses on Feuerbach we find that the new Materialism is in fact an Idealism. Marx says the problem with the old Materialism is “that the Object (der Gegenstand), actuality, sensuousness, are conceived only in the form of the object (Objekts), or of contemplation (Anschauung), but not as human sensuous activity, practice (Praxis), not subjectively.” Marx even says there the Materialists have to learn from the Idealists in the following sentence. Marx says in the Theses on Feuerbach that the old Materialism could not be revolutionary and so the new Materialism must take from Idealism. The problem however is that it stops being Materialism. Marx’s so called “Materialism” is like the moral subjectivist who admits to the role that reason must play in morality (Rudolf Steiner’s “ethical individualism” for example). Reason by its nature is universal, and so such moral subjectivism could not be subjectivist. And when Marx starts to bring in these ideals of a reality formed by praxis he has trouble being a Materialist.

This is more than a mere getoffyourassism, but even if it was just that it would show a level of idealism as it shows humans to have free will. It is sad that most of the online left will look to the Theses on Feuerbach as mere getoffyourassism and a belief in free will. When Marx shows Feuerbach as unable to understand human society this is not like it is for Marx the fault of the old Materialism, but in truth all Materialism. Thus for Gentile and Diego Fusaro the idea of praxis and of the pure act of thinking are similar. However, Marx still for Gentile did not take hold to that “beautiful flower of Idealism”. Me and Fusaro say they are similar but not the same as Gentile points out, Marxist Praxis “is a subjective production of man; a production, however, of sensory activity (sinnliche Tätigkeit); not of thought”. Thus, Marx for Gentile may still be said to be a Materialist and he did not swim the waters of Idealism but only got deep enough to cover his legs. To quote Gentile; “The passage, therefore, from a posteriori to a priori, as the reason for reality, is understood in idealism; but in Marx’s materialism it is inconceivable.” It is also true that Marx for Gentile did not get past “the nominalistic intuition which sees in society nothing but individuals”. There is a reason Gentile wrote The Theory of Mind as Pure Act and not The Theory of Mind as Praxis. For Gentile this praxis idea shows an Idealism in that Marx also does not get past Materialism;

“Marx does not seem to have taken the slightest care to see how praxis could be coupled with matter, as the only reality; while the whole of the preceding history of philosophy must have warned him of the irreconcilability of the two principles: of that form (praxis) with that content (matter).”

To say praxis was the only reality was the project of Gentile, and so, for this reason Augusto Del Noce puts the Gentile’s work The Philosophy of Marx as the genesis of Fascism. Augusto Del Noce is half right in doing so. Now we start to see the birth of Gentile’s Actualism. The importance of both Marx and Spaventa is not made so clear in the The Theory of Mind as Pure Act. However, we see importance of Marx still leak through at times. Like how he viewed one of the reason the Greeks did not reach views like his is that “ancient philosophy never did conceive, historyprogress.” He even further in the book states that the problem with mixing history and eternity “led Plato to deny value to history”. The fact Gentile sees philosophy of history as important in this way shows the impact of Marx. Gentile also seems to agree with Karl Löwith that the Greeks did not care for history and had no philosophy of history. This view in Philosophy And Hope Fusaro himself calls “simplistic and superficial”. In Polybius we see not just a history but a circular philosophy of history. Fusaro also states “Epicurus had preferred the hope of a different future to the inexorable necessity advocated by the physicists.” Gentile’s Idealism unlike the Greek idealism however was born out of philosophy of history.

Gentile, despite what Herbert Marcuse wants you to think, was an idealist and he gives an argument for idealism that sounds a lot like the argument given by a lot of other idealists;

“Reality is conceivable only in so far as the reality conceived is in relation to the activity which conceives it, and in that relation it is not only a possible object of knowledge, it is a present and actual one. To conceive reality is to conceive, at the same time and as one with it, the mind in which that reality is represented; and therefore the concept of a material reality is absurd.”

One quote sums up his form of idealism, but needs to be explained to show how. Hegel infamously wrote a preface attacking prefaces. Like a preface in philosophy a quote makes more sense after you already know how they think;

“[…] the spirit […] is never really that pure theoretical activity that is imagined to stand in opposition to practical activity: there is no theory or contemplation of reality that is not also action and thus the creation of reality. Indeed, there is no cognitive act that does not have a value, or rather, that is not judged, precisely so far as it is a cognitive act, according to its exact conformity to its own law and whether or not it is recognized as being what it ought to be […] If we were not the authors of our ideas, or rather, if our ideas were not purely our own actions, they would not be ours, we would be unable to judge them, they would have no value: they would be neither true nor false.”

Gentile holds that reality is in our act of thinking. Thinking for him is universal, and something outside of our thinking is something outside of reality. His view has been attacked as “solipsism”, and Gentile responds to this attack. The problem for Gentile is solipsism holds to a particular and negative ego, and actualism holds on to a dialectical ego, and moreover makes itself a thing and not a spirit. It can exclude other egos. We must think about other minds and we must have unification with other minds. And without such there could be no understanding. It is not my mind or your mind but our mind. He even speaks of an “infinite unity.” Diego Fusaro that “This can be seen as an attempt to reclaim a monistic perspective, to draw everything back to the unity of the thinking though.”

“The dialectical concept of mind, then, not only does not exclude, it requires spiritual multiplicity as the essential mark of the infinite unity of mind. Infinite unity is therefore infinite unification of the multiple as it is infinite multiplication of the one.”

Hegel being an absolute idealist in contrast to the subjective idealism of Gentile. First, Gentile sees in the old “Platonic idealism, which persisted throughout Aristotelian, neo-Platonist, Scholastic and Cartesian intellectualistic metaphysics, right through to Kant” that the spirit is removed. As, mind there is more like a substance or thing or finished event. This for Gentile, is not a truly spiritual view. The idea, the Absolute, is not spirit, but the object and presupposition of spirit. It is an object that cannot be identified with the spirit without annulling itself as spirit in the process. In so doing it collapses into a simple presupposition of an ulterior spiritual position, in relation to which it becomes a knowable reality.

For Gentile our thought “is act or process, not substance”, and as for the old idealism;It declared it to be substance, by which it meant that it was the subject of an activity of which it was independent, an activity therefore which it could realize or not realize without thereby losing or gaining its own being. In our view the mind has no existence apart from its manifestations; for these manifestations are according to us its own inward and essential realization. We can also say of our mind that it is our experience, so long as we do […] By experience we must mean the act of experiencing, pure experience, that which is living and real.

Now, modern idealism starting with Kant had one important figure and that was Hegel. For Gentile Hegel started a revolution in idealism that he did not finish. As Hegel understood the impact of the Kantian view. The transcendental ego of Kant is not substance but thought. And here we say thought can not mind making the old and the new understanding of mind clear. When we are speaking of thought we are speaking of mind as an act. For Gentile not even Berkeley understood this understanding of mind as thought.

“although Berkeley identified representation with the existence of that which is perceived, his conception has nothing to do with negation. Kantian or Hegelian ‘thought’ — which is the act of the thinking activity — would also understand Berkeleian representation as something presupposed by thought. It is with Hegel, therefore, that we see the beginning of the new idealism — an idealism that can no longer be called naturalism, but something akin to spiritualism.”

Hegel as stated “did not follow his revolution through to the end”. He still had elements of the old Platonic view which he could not shake off. Thus this view for Gentile is divided: “on the one hand it presents itself as an activity that thinks, and on the other, as a reality understood as both object and presupposition of thought.” And in both we see the old Platonic view rearing its head. They both hold reality that has transcended the act of thought. In Hegel, we see the reason of the world, and also, pure nature. Thus we may say that Gentile grew out of the philosophy of Kant and Hegel. But for Gentile because of these elements in Hegel, it is Gentile’s goal to take Hegel to the next step. For Gentile the older forms of Idealism were too close to materialism, and so he wants to make a more extreme form of idealism. As he states in a his lecture The Rebirth of Idealism;

“Thus, the dominant character of the current idealism, rebelling against the naturalist movement, is to negate nature and oppose it to the Spirit: either idealist monism, which solves the problem by denying its existence; or else dualism, which acknowledges the problem but declares itself powerless to solve it. In neither case is there any real understanding of idealism. And since what is not understood is not in the Spirit, while idealism can be nowhere else but in the Spirit, I claim that real idealism is missing in both cases.”

Gentile sees the same problem in Hegel as another Hegelian, Bertrando Spaventa. Spaventa other than Gentile may be the most important think in the formation of Actualism. Reading his essay Pure Experience and Historical Reality and the lecture The Rebirth of Idealism make the importance of Spaventa clear. Like how Jakob Böhme is only spoken of once in The Science of Logic (in the remark on quality and negation in the chapter on determinate being) despite his huge impact on Hegel Gentile says little of Spaventa in The Theory of Mind as Pure Act. Gentile follows the stupid Spaventaian attack of the old Idealism and of Hegelianism. And so there must be a new idealism in which that naturalistic world is removed. The new idealism must view no reality outside of knowledge. Spaventa here was a needed upheaval of the whole Hegelian system to iron out these seeming contradictions in Hegel found by Spaventa and Gentile. One may say that we see this “contradiction” already in the preface to the Phenomenology if we take for example in §17. However, Hegel is right that the only way to grasp substance is as subject just as morality is subjective universality. It must be this way for substance can only be made “for itself only for us“. In other words so that it can not only be in self but also for self. This in self and for self is explained well by Hegel in the preface to the Phenomenology (§21 & 26) and in §124 of the Encyclopedia Hegel gives us what may be taken as a proto-feminist line relating to such things.

This does seem like an odd attack as Hegel is the master of contradictions. Hegel is the man who shows the unity of being and nothing, of the finite and the infinite. In fact in his Encyclopedia Hegel uses the things “natural being” when outlining his method (§81). In other words Hegel is after what the thing is. At the end of the Science of Logic Hegel says that “Nature and spirit are in general different modes of presenting its existence” so both exist in the absolute idea. Just as being and nothing have becoming, as the whole and the parts have force we see that nature and spirit have the absolute idea. I don’t remove fascism from the title of Hegelian because it did historically come from Hegel, but I think you can see how this one move is almost like a full rejection of Hegel.

As Enrico Corradini stated; “Fascism took the succession of Socialism and went beyond it.” Gentile in his view did the same to Hegel. Gentile found Hegelian idealism as Hegel had left it and felt to correct the mistake in Hegel’s absolute idealism. To fix it Spaventa viewed that the naturalistic element to the dialectic had to be removed. However, as I will get into after I’m done explaining Gentile he found himself in a worst unresolvable contradiction by removing nature.

His Pure Experience and Historical Reality, shows us how this idealism works speaking on The Divine ComedyThe Comedy is a creation of those who study it. It is not just some poem from 1320, as it is the Comedy that we study as the creation of those who study it that is real. A divine poem from 1320 is nothing but an abstract.Just try securing in thought something we assume to be already determined; that very act will be a new creation which will resuscitate the process. This means that self-consciousness, in its individuality, is formed in the infinite and that this individuality cannot, therefore, be divided into multiple discrete individuals, but in a continuous process of individuation. The same can be said of The Divine Comedy, for example, which is not, strictly speaking, a work of a certain individual imagination, undertaken in the narrow confines of the life of a man who died in 1321; that would be an abstraction. The real Divine Comedy is that which we read, which we interpret, and on which we cast judgment. […]

“Thus our work extends the process by which we establish that spiritual creation that we call the Comedy, is carried out across a series of centuries; it is tangled up in the whole progress of the spirit and flows into the general current of thought, or of culture.”

Pure Experience and Historical Reality is also a good text for putting Gentile into his context in the history of philosophy. However, true history for Gentile is only an abstract. The history that we make up is the true history. Is there even a point in doing history? What we believe about history is truth. Historical truth is not things as they happened way back when but what we make up now. I have an idea how Gentile would respond to my question “Why even do real history?” and I will respond soon.

With all this in mind, it is not hard to understand the relativistic nature of the proper Fascist view. And the rejection by Fascism of natural law. As in Rocco’s Political Doctrine of Fascism natural law is rejected as liberal. To attack natural law for being liberal is absurd. Natural law I would argue like many things believed to come from Greek philosophy is older and goes back to the old days of Egypt but more than feeding into liberalism it would be impossible to build a natural law under this idealism. The idea of something outside of our act of thinking is impossible here.

Now, on another note, we may speak of how Gentile views God. For the Hegelians in the anglosphere, God held an important role in their idealism. It would be hard to think of Anglos in America and England holding the same lack of belief in God as McTaggart. Gentile holds that his idealism is compatible with Christianity and Catholicism. However, he holds God to be a man-god: est Deus in Nobis (God is within us). Here there is a spiritual unity of man and God, but moreover;It is a reality which waits for us to construct, a reality which is true even now of love and will, because it is the inward effort of the soul, its living process, not its ideal and external model. It is man himself who rises above humanity and becomes God. And even God is no longer a reality who already is, but the God who is begotten in us and is ourselves in so far as we with our whole being rise to him. Here mind is no longer intellect but will. The world is no longer what is known but what is made; and therefore not only can we begin to conceive the mind as freedom or moral activity, but the world, the whole: world of the Christian is freed and redeemed. The whole world is a world which is what it would be, or a world, as we say, essentially moral.

This then brings us to his idiotic form of Christianity and Catholicism. We are starting to see how this idealism has perverted the Fascist view of Christianity and Catholicism. I will take one more quote from Gentile on the topic.

“Christianity develops through the history of modern thought; you could say that its whole development consists in gradually freeing itself from the perception of the transcendence of the Good in order either to become aware of its actual spirituality, or in order to grasp the act by which the spirit realizes itself. That is to say: it consists entirely in the progressive overcoming of the opposition between the will and the intellect, or between what is (nature) and what ought to be (spiritual reality). So being is not opposed to what ought to be, but is contained within it. And the real — the old real, that is — is not opposed to the ideal. Rather, the real is contained within the ideal, and the ideal realizes itself as the negation of the real that it comprises. So the world is idealized, spiritualized and completely illuminated in order to become a free, spiritual and moral world. The moral world in [the doctrine of the pure] act is neither some golden age nor paradise without evil. It is a contrast between good and evil, a struggle to achieve the joy of the spirit, a joy that can only be tasted through effort, as a result of hard-fought achievement. It is a world that is real only insofar as it is realized, a world that is moral in fieri: a moral act.”

Diego Fusaro points out the incompatibility with this and Christianity. And I will also later use Fusaro to show an incompatibility with Gentileianism and Gentile’s own nationalism.

“Catholic philosophy regards Gentile’s Actualism as its most dangerous enemy, because what does Gentile’s Actualism do, in practice? It doesn’t simply deny God, it also deifies man, we could almost say that it bestows upon man a certain task that the scholars attributed only to God […] transforms man into the creator of his destiny confers to man competences previously owned only by God himself. Therefore we find in Gentile this radical form of Humanism.”

Which finally brings us this last part his ethics, as both of these quotes also tie into that. I will spend less time here because I want to run into the attack on the idealism, and after the idealism falls apart so do his ethics. As stated Fascism rejects natural law, and the ideas of actuality and rationality as they are in Hegel’s ethics are impossible here. Gentile views this act of thinking as ethical (not as much as what is created). One of the greatest moral wrongs in Gentile’s eyes is hypocrite, and what is good is good thinking (weeding out the “true” from the “false”). Not engaging in the thought of others is evil. However, ended in an anti-realist constructivist morality as pointed out by James Wakefield;

“Gentile’s moral philosophy represents a radical variety of anti-realism, distinguished from other anti-realist doctrines by its rigorous adherence to the necessarily subjective standpoint of the thinker actively reflecting on the choices with which he is confronted.”

Gentile is right in agreeing with the idealism that following Jakob Böhme (Böhme was a full idealist see the fifth point if his Six Mystical Points for proof) of viewing freedom as one of the highest good. For Böhme as Robin Waterfield states “the essential nature if the undetermined Divinity is freedom.” The idealism to follow after Böhme of Hegel and Schelling freedom is the highest good. Gentile also correctly put freedom as one of the highest goods. However, his ethics are about more than freedom. And an argument is to be made that Gentile’s idealism allows more freedom than Hegel’s. After all now there is no will but the human will. However, such a brain dead argument that idealist absolutism leaves no room for individual free action were already responded to by Hegel and Schelling. Rudolf Steiner is right to say “monism is a freedom phliosophy” but he is wrong in his views on moral law. Moreover, it is not the idealism of Hegel but that of Gentile that destroys freedom. I am now done explaining (forgive me for how long it was), and so now will start the attack on the idealism then show how it destroys freedom. For Hegel;

“The basis of right is, in general, mind; its precise and point of origin is the will. The will is free, so that freedom is both the substance of right and its goal, while the system of right is the realm of freedom made actual, the world of mind brought forth out of itself forth a second nature.”

I will start by stating that this idealism was already responded to by Hegel himself. Not only that but as early as 1803 in his essay on natural law. There he says “it is the Absolute which makes philosophy a genuine science.” And in the Science of Logic he latter says “A philosophy which ascribed veritable, ultimate, absolute being to finite existence as such, would not deserve the name of philosophy” What this shows is that in a way what Gentile does may not be called philosophy. One may ask why you should debate a Fascist, and the truth is there is no point. Gentile put “truth” in a very important spot in his philosophy but his truth is not truly true. When we debate we are looking for truth. However, under subjective idealism what can be said to be true? Truth would need something more absolute and universal. Fascists have no need to be honest. If they “universalize” their thinking then it is truth. Myth can become reality. As I said speaking on Gentile’s history “Is there even a point in doing history?” Gentile would say there is, and that it is tied up with this ethical creation of reality and the weeding out of error (which for Gentile error is only abstract) to take hold of truth. However, Fascism has no room for truth. So, there is no point in debating a Fascist.

Gentile’s philosophy was used to justify fascism but it can justify just about anything in a correct context. It could be used to justify modern America, the Soviet Union. All of these are ethical creating and actualizing a myth. All is relative and the morality is anti-realist. But from this unifying of thought we create this Fascist fetish of the state. Hegel’s state is one that should obey the law of God. The Fascist state is as Eugen Weber states “something of a fraud”. Now, Eugen Weber has a point but he understood Hegel’s state (like calling it platonic is odd). Herbert Marcuse does it a bit better but I don’t think he totally got Hegel’s state or the Fascist state. Marcuse is right in making this attack on fascism in relation to Hegelianism but he is for example wrong when he speaks of Hegel’s glorification of the Prussian monarchy (Hegel’s Philosophy of Right was not in support of any existing state as Knox points out). And really the only thing Fascism takes from Hegel in the view of the state is viewing it as the actualization of consciousness and as the mind of the nation.

I do not, like Marcuse, say that Fascism is not Hegelian. I say it is Hegelian as Mormonism is Christian. Many with good reason say Mormonism is not Christian. I however do not care to say Mormonism is or is not Christian. I do not care to call Fascism Hegelian, or to remove that title from it. It grew out of Hegel and Hegel may in many ways be called a proto-fascist. Marcuse may not have the best reasoning but he does have a point (same with Adorno’s and George L. Mosse’s views on the homoerotic nature to Fascism). The rejection of nature and viewing it as a contradiction is almost a total rejection of Hegel however. Hegel views that it’s the dialect that causes the thing’s “immediate or natural being to move suddenly into its opposite.” The fact we say “immediate or natural being” is important, and must here be kept in mind. For Hegel we are after what the thing is, and in doing so it acts on us and we on it. For Gentile we create the thing. And again at the end of the Science of Logic Hegel says that “Nature and spirit are in general different modes of presenting its existence” so both exist in the absolute idea. Just as being and nothing have becoming, as the whole and the parts have force we see that nature and spirit have the absolute idea. We could just look to how Hegel describes philosophy. Already in the first paragraph of Encyclopaedia;

“The objects of philosophy, it is true, are upon the whole the same as those of religion. In both the object is Truth, in that supreme sense in which God and God only is the Truth. Both in like manner go on to treat of the finite worlds of Nature and the human Mind, with their relation to each other and to their truth in God.”

Saying that philosophy has the one true divine God as its goal is interesting. Plotinus once said “Our concern is not to be free from sin, but to be god.” Gentile in rhetoric is not too far from here (as seen in the one quote). The word philosophia is probably a rendering of an older as of now unknown Egyptian term, but likely a compound of meni (love) and rekh (wisom or knowledge). Philosophy is the love of wisdom. It is God holds eternal wisdom, and wisdom is his manifestation. Philosophy even before the days Egypt to now is seeking to reach to the heights of the one true God. I would like to quote Algis Uždavinys “This doctrine is explicitly stated circa 2060 B.C. in the wisdom text which emphasize gnosis, saying that the man of knowledge is ‘likeness (mjtj) of God’, meaning ‘a fundamental kinship of action, nature and rank.'” The Egyptians also speak of it as being sun-like as being transformed akh and to reach the heights of Ra himself. The Book of Two Ways from the early middle kingdom states that such enlightened souls can say “I have inherited the horizon of Ra. I am Atum.” The Egyptians also speak of becoming a start in the night sky. And, we can speak of a Egyptian sage like Amenhotep who started their own cult. However, Gentile is wrong in how he understands God. This moves us to more ancient views of philosophy. Algis Uždavinys describes the ancient philosopher as a “poetically enlightened person who follows his lived philsophia as a model way of living and dying, or of becoming ‘like a god'” for ancient philosophy “mythology is not excluded from philosophy”. However, I may be in a somewhat un-Hegelian way looking too much to these ancient views of philosophy. So, let us look more too Hegel himself. Hegel gives two important elements: the historic and the eternal element. Diego Fusaro explains these two elements in his book Marx Again;

“Thus, truth itself historically, although without resolving itself into the pure historical genesis. Indeed, the eternal truth of the Idea consists in the process of progression through the time in which it leaves-itself to then return-to-self enriched by the adventures of the negative, in the specific form ‘a becoming other which must be taken back’ (ein Anderswerden, das zurückgenommen werden muß) and which, therefore, ‘is a mediation’ (ist eine Vermittlung). This unity between the logical-ontological and the historical-temporal level finds its most clear formulation in the Vorrede to The Phenomenology of Spirit, which explains how that which is eternally becomes so in its historical development, as the result of mediation, as the outcome of the immanent processulity of the logical-ontological principle’s becoming truthful: ‘the truth is in the whole (das Wahre ist das Ganze). However, the whole is only the essence which is accomplished through its own development (durch seine Entwicklung). In fact, it must be said that the Absolute is essentially a result, that only at the end it is what it is what it truthfully is’.

“Truth coincides, this is the main point, with the temporally configured process of the truthful-becoming-true. Thus, we find ourselves in the presence of a transcendentalism with a historical but not a historicist basis: indeed, the Hegelian perspective offers safer title onto-historical equilibrium between the eternal element (the universal validity of philosophy) and the historical element (the place of determination of philosophical truths, and thus their particular genesis), in the context of a truthful conception of philosophy, in which validity (Geltung) is universal and genesis is particular and historically determined.”

For Gentile can’t have this unfolding of the eternal element that acts on us and us on it. That would imply that it has a part to it that is in-itself. Only the historical element that we create in our time. Diego Fusaro also speaks of that being “extended by Giovanni Gentile.” The translator of The Theory of Mind as Pure Act points to the name “actual idealism” itself and almost makes it sound like Gentile does not go beyond this view as this act of thing is for Gentile absolute, and so is eternal existing in an “eternal being” and an “eternal present”. However, Gentile attacks this Hegelian view of history in chapter 13 of The Theory of Mind as Pure Act. It must also be said that this for Gentile is the only thing that can be said to be absolute, and so we are at subjectivism. It extends it by removing an important element. If anything this is a degeneration. Gentile speaks of the “degenerate Hegelianism of the left, represented especially by Feuerbach.” However, his Hegelianism is also a degenerate Hegelianism. I will also add that Diego Fusaro in his own personal philosophy suffers from many of the same problems and incoherences of Gentile, and at least in his English translated works is even more poorly argued than Gentile. I love Diego Fusaro and recommend his books but this needs to be said.

Now, for Gentile truth is not truly true. For Fusaro there is no thing-in-itself. Gentile may say that he believes in a truth. Hell, his ethics involves finding the truth, and that is why not engaging in the thought of others is evil. But can you really call the “truth” that he speaks of true? You can’t. So the attack on subjective idealism and argument of an absolute idealism made by a man who is often falsely called a Hegelian Josiah Royce can still be used on Gentile. James Wakefield wants to emphasize how Gentile is not like the more vulgar forms of subjectivity, and moral relativism however that does not change that he still falls victim to many of the same attacks. This is what I meant when I said by removing nature he put himself in a worst spot than he accused Hegel of being in. Spaventa and his follower Gentile believed to have found the problem in Hegel and their answer was to put themselves in an even worst position than Hegel. So this must be said to be a degenerate Hegelianism.

“This paradox is wild enough if you look at it fairly. And yet many thinkers actually have maintained it under various disguises as the doctrine of what is called the Total Relativity of Truth. […] If there is no real distinction between truth and error, then the statement that there is such a difference is not really false, but only seemingly false. And then in truth there is a distinction once more. Try as you will, you come not beyond the fatal circle. If it is wrong to say that there is Absolute Truth, then the statement that there is absolute truth is itself false. […] If it is false only relatively, then it is not false absolutely. Hence the statement that it is false absolutely is itself false.”

Gentile states in The Act of Thinking as Pure Act “Error is abstract, then; only the truth is concrete.” However, Royce was using the fact of error to prove an absolute mind. For subjective idealist like Gentile error is in his words “an accidental attribute of another’s thinking or of thinking no longer our own”. To say this however is absurd and incoherent. And there is an infinite number of ways one can be wrong. Thus so that reaches the conclusion of an absolute mind which determines what is true what is false. This is simplified version of the point Royce was making. And if error is necessary although nothing more than an accidental abstract then he is a sitting duck to this attack from Royce. I call him a degenerate Hegelianism not because he modified Hegel (that is something that should be done) but because he moved it into an even worse position.

Now, we should move to how Gentile modifies the Hegelian dialectic. This has been shown a bit but it is better shown in the forth chapter to The Theory of Mind as Pure Act. Gentile sees the problem with the Hegelian dialectic as Hegel could not help but speak of fixed concepts. Being is to a degree fixed, and so too is nothing. For Gentile this makes the movement from nothing to being a bit difficult, and there “could not be that meeting together and shock of being and nothing from which Hegel thought to strike the spark of life.” Gentile then sees being and nothing as two dead things. Gentile wants to remove all concepts that are fixed in anyway. But is not the act of thing itself to a degree fixed? The Positivist can not prove Positivism with their own verifiability principle. Gentile can not escape the one thing he can say to be absolute, and this one thing shows a problem with his moderation of the Hegelian dialectic. In fact this is how Gentile shoves the problem in the Hegelian dialectic following his attack. The act of thinking is just as “fixed” as being or nothing. It must be or it is not to be the act of thinking. To remove anything that could be said to be “fixed” one would have to ontologically speaking be a nihilist, and I don’t think anyone is dumb enough to be an ontological nihilist. One would even have to remove this subjective act of thinking if we remove all that is “fixed”.

Moreover if we must remove anything fixed the natural being that passes into its other we find ourselves in an odd spot. When I speak of the tree that is out my window, that implies that the window and the tree are at least in some part in-themselves. What it also implies is that the tree and the window are in someway part of the natural world. This may not be the most sound argument against Gentile, but it is a point. Gentile himself notes in The Moral Problem how odd it is to say we set the sun. And also the tree and the window can not be said to be totally in-themselves. To only speak of them as they are in-themselves is like the immature and patriarchal state, or the seed that is not yet a plant or the infant (examples from Hegel). Also in Hegelianism we speak of the reflected absoluteness of actuality. This reflected absoluteness of actuality also can not exist in the Idealism of Gentile as it needs the thing as it is in-itself to move into an other, and back into self.

I said that Gentile’s idealism destroys freedom. Let me explain. Hegel was looking to absolute freedom and not mere abstract freedom. Abstract freedom is but a step in movement to absolute freedom. This is a freedom in relation to the absolute ethical order in which we become ourselves. Gentile too views freedom not as a mere abstract freedom. For Gentile then it is a freedom in relation to that great force unifying thought (i.e. the state). Freedom for the Fascist comes from the state and for Hegel it is in relation to a more powerful force. But freedom here is from a fake absolute. Fascism has put the ascribed veritable, ultimate, absolute being to finite existence. So its freedom is merely subjective, so the truth of freedom is destroyed like all other truth. Freedom can not be a truth as Gentile believes it to be. Like all other things under a subjective view of things is meaningless. And as I have shown with a quote from Royce it is in an extremely incoherent place. Under the idealism of Gentile even if he himself would reject this conclusion freedom can not be real or meaningful. To make it even more incoherent can we even speak of “freedom” in the Gentileian dialectic? Must we say too that freedom is a dead thing?

At the first look putting man as the creator of reality would allow for the maximum level of freedom. This however would only be on the first look with thinking too much, and with a vulgar idea of freedom that Gentile himself and even Anarchists reject. Diego Fusaro argues that “The thing in itself should be rejected because it is an impediment to free human praxis” so he argues for an idealism in which “humanity is conceived of as a single acting subject (Fichte’s I, Hegel’s Spirit) is created and can be found in what it has created”. Fusaro speaks of genesis of the objective in the subjective. the Fusaro like Gentile also speaks of the “telos of universal freedom.” I point this out because the argument given by Fusaro in Europe And Capitalism is built around free human praxis. He argues for a subjective idealism from the view of freedom. Fusaro may not want it to be called subjective idealism (based off some things he says in his work and a Spanish interview with Santiago Armesilla), he moves between what may be viewed not to odd of an idealist view when he says we “adapt the object to our active subjectivity” and when he speak of idealist history. However, Fusaro must be a subjective idealist and that is one of his many weaknesses. Fusaro is right under materialism there can be no free human praxis. However, going to a subjective idealism was going too far. Now, like for Gentile the freedom he is looking for is in an extremely incoherent place.

Moreover, Fusaro commits a crime that in Hegel’s eyes would be worse than Kant’s. The attack of Kant in §45 of his Encyclopedia because Kant says we do not understand the thing-in-itself but Fusaro denies the thing in itself, and Gentile must do the same. Hegel’s own views on the thing-in-itself is lined out well the chapter on existence in the Science of Logic. My copy does not have the sections numbered but it is §1054 on marxists.org that I think gives the best idea of how Hegel views the things-in-themselves, and I have before cited §124 of the Encyclopedia. And we must remember like how objectivity or subjectivity are merely abstract, the thing-in-itself is kinda abstract and so we must remember that it is “related to self as to another.” And as Hegel points out “The thing-in-self has color only in relation to the eyes, smell in relation to the nose and so on”. Thus here we have a more full view than Fusaro just removing it and in Marx Again calling Kant dogmatic for holding on to a noumenalogical world.

Also, in that chapter from the Science of Logic also goes against a subjective idealism, and for what some now call absolute idealism. This being an argument from the relation of things; “This relationship constitutes the totality of Existence.” writes Hegel. Gentile is like I said before a degenerate Hegelian. Throwing away what was good in Hegel.

And now on to the point about Gentile’s nationalism as his love for the Risorgimento and Fascism is well known. However, Fusaro points out that there is a incompatibility with Gentileianism and Nationalism, and I will add to this point to show how incoherent Gentile really is. Fusaro himself is often somewhat falsely and also totally in reason attacked as a nationalist.

“The fourth, and possibly most important point, is that Gentile, in perfect idealist style, holds on firmly to the unity of the human race, and elevates his idea the level of great idealistic thinkers like Fichte and Hegel. Gentile envisions the human race as a unitary subject, creating history at the rhythm of a gradual universalizing of freedom. This is a crucial point. Gentile holds on to this clearly idealistic concept. One could certainly object: but, as a fascist, what was his stance vis á vis the race laws, the horrible race laws; what was his stance on the horrible colonial invasions. Gentile, being organic to the fascist party, obviously did not oppose the race laws, […] but although he didn’t openly oppose them, in some sense he really did, because Gentile fully supported Jewish intellectuals, so in some way he did. I consider the figure of Rodolfo Mondolfo as emblematic as someone who did not only collaborate with Gentile, but whose life Gentile saved, allowing him to escape to Argentina. This is then an essential episode.I think the universalistic footprint of Gentile’s thought is revealed clearly in an extract that I will read to you — I like to read some extracts from the author’s work to illustrate the sense of his thinking. For example here, in Fundamentals of the Philosophy of Law Gentile writes: ‘All human beings are, as spiritual being, one single human being, with one single interest, constantly evolving and unfolding: the heritage of humanity.’ This is the idea of the human race as a single unit. Also, in The Philosophy of Art — and I purposefully quote from several works to show how this is not just an occasional consideration, but is firmly rooted in Gentile’s thought — in The philosophy of Art he writes: ‘The journey of the human race progresses towards the enactment of a human personality, a progressively self-aware thought, always broader and shared as valid by a widening circle of men’ This is also a very trenchant extract. Lastly I will quote a third excerpt from The Reform of Hegelian Dialectic, […] Gentile writes, ‘The history of humanity progresses thought a continual efforts of willpower, constantly liberating itself through civil, economic, political, religious and scientific struggles, towards the absolute emancipation of reason, whose ideal for, of it was fully realized, would mark the end of history; but since every ideal is realized in an infinite life, the conclusion will never come, nor will perfect ethical emancipation ever be realized, and human beings […] will always work towards humanization, towards fuller freedom, with a perpetual rhythm of morality and philosophy.’ So although here Gentile keeps the door open for the idea of an unlimited perfectibility, he doesn’t fully define his thought in this way. He also keeps the process of unlimited universalizing of freedom open.”

This only goes to show how incoherent Gentile really is. In an introduction to Gentile’s Genesis and Structure of Society we see an extent attack on Fascism from British idealist Bernard Bosanquet. He calls it “unity without a universe”; no universe, no nature and so no universal. This universal humanitarian character of Fascism is also not compatible with itself. You are talking about a universal when there can be no universal. It is just all incoherent. Fusaro in this quote also shows one of the problems with Nationalism. The problem for Nationalists is that for freedom to be freedom it must be universal, and for moral law to be moral law it must be universal. It may also be said for truth to be truth it must be universal. Freedom is international, and so too is moral law. Truth may also be said to be international. And Nationalism is too the individualism of the peoples. It gets in the way of reaching the one human race, just as nationalists will point out individualism prevents us from reaching the nation. Thus I say again Nationalism is the individualism of the peoples. I am not the most well read in Kant but it is not hard to see why he dreamed of a league of nations. Hegel gives a weak nationalist reply to Kant here in §333-334 in the Philosophy of Right. People point to the Libertarian to nationalist pipe line but ignore that both have some of the same logic. Nationalism is a doctrine so weak that even many post-war fascists, and parts of the SS started to reject it.

“Just as it is impossible for the materialist to declare spirit out of existence, so the spiritualist cannot disavow the material world” said Rudolf Steiner speaking on Fichte, and he had a point. There is clearly something beyond our act of thinking. There is a nature and a noumenon out there, and Rudolf Steiner should have probably said nature and not “material world”. This may be one of the weaker attacks one can make, but it holds true. Diego Fusaro who follows in some of the footsteps of Gentile also in his interpretation of Marx. Diego Fusaro who many would call a Marxist agrees with Gentile’s attack on Marxism. Not only does Fusaro agree that Marx was a poor materialist more like an idealist, but he adds to it. Fusaro adds that the idealism of Marx is more like the idealism of Fichte then of Hegel.

This shows a Marxist response. If idealism is not a bad thing, and Marx was more like an idealist anyways, then in the modification of Marx, we must adapt him to our time, we should also remove the last bits of materialism. Thus the Fascist response is to rebuild Fascism with a new idealism putting the thing-in-itself and the noumenal world into its proper place, and also a rebuilding of morality. First problem is at what point does it stop being fascist. Marxism is at a point like this, just find some retarted tankie and ask if the Frankfurt School is Marxist. Augusto Del Noce was kinda wrong in viewing Gentile’s attack in Marx as the birth of fascism. However this brings up the questions. Were there Fascist Anti-Gentileians? How true is it that Gentile was the philosopher of Fascism?

There in fact were Anti-Gentileian Fascists but I hold that many of them were too right-wing and too reactionary to be called Fascist. I think of the egoist turned Fascist Berto Ricci, and also Niccolò Giani’s School of Fascist Mysticism (both of which I am not calling right-wing and reactionary). But there is a bit more however not too much of it is in English and I only speak English. So I will be looking to an article by Italian female historian Alessandra Tarquini The Anti-Gentilians during the Fascist Regime. This article was sent to me to show how Fascism is not Gentileian, but I don’t think the person who sent it to me read it. This article first of all notes that the anti-Gentilians had little impact on Gentile’s “hegemonic role in the elaboration of fascist ideology”. I will also say that she probably is not the best representative of the people she talks about like for example Curzio Malaparte who signed Gentile’s Manifesto of the Fascist Intellectuals. One of the more interesting people del Vecchio had his professorship removed by the fascists (a review of one of his books makes me kinda believe she’s not doing the best job explaining him). Attacking Gentile for bringing elements of Liberalism and the Protestant Reformation as many of these people do ignores that nationalism is a product of Liberalism and the Protestant Reformation. According to the article also the anti-Gentileians really only had one win. However, she is right in stating;

“From all this, it becomes clearer why, as stated at the beginning of this article, one cannot resolve the complexity of fascist cultural totalitarianism into Giovanni Gentile’s thought. Fascist ideology was, in fact, the manifestation of political and cultural trends that were different, but shared the principles of a totalitarian conception of politics and the State.”

We speak of Gentile not as he was the philosopher of Fascism. Fascism was too complex to merely look at Gentile. We speak of Gentile as a man with a hegemonic role in Fascist ideology. He is also the best known justifier. After I say my last statements on Gentile I will go more deep into Fascism.

2.1 End Thoughts on Gentile

It was said by Nicolás Gómez Dávila that “Relativism is the solution of one who is incapable of putting things in order.” Here the Colombian Catholic Nietzsche hits at something true that we may say for Gentile and even Nietzsche. Gentile was incapable of a task which the oldest of Idealists could do. That is he could not put nature and spirit into their place, and so created a dualism in which one must be thrown out.

Idealism has an incredibly rich history. In the Corpus Hermeticum there is in the tenth part some profoundly strong statements on Idealism. When the mind speaks to Hermes Trismegistus it is said that “all things are full of soul, and all things are properly moved by it” it is also said that “there is one soul, one life, and one matter.” We also hear of a “universal body” full of soul and mind that holds all other bodies. Before this part Hermes Trismegistus tells Asclepius that all bodies have spirit and so even seeming empty air is infact full of life and spirit. There is also interestingly long before these two parts a not so clear distinction between soul, mind and spirit made. Those are still interlinked deeply, and they together make up reality. We see here what looks to be a panpsychic and monistic idealism.

It is known that Hermes Trismegistus is a Greek transformation of the Egyptian god Thoth. In ancient we can speak of Idealism, as Algis Uždavinys shows in his wonderful book Philosophy as a Rite of Rebirth. We speak of heka or magick. We speak of no higher ontological force than heka. This force at some point made it into the Corpus Hermeticum and is now translated into things like soul, mind and spirit. Heka and magick are associated with speech and the power of the word. Magic as I will say again when we get into German Idealism. Magick for the all things physical, noetic and psychic exist though heka. Uždavinys describes it as “the main agent of demiurgy and theurgy. of descent and ascent, of living according to truth (maat).”

We may also compare Nun to the Platonic one, and Atum-Ra to divine Intellect. Uždavinys “Plotinus also argues that the universe lies in Soul which is analogous to Osiris or Isis-Hathor in her form of the celestial Cow. The Soul, Ba of Amun, or the breath of Shu in the psychic Osirian level”. And we could go deeper into the philosophy and Idealism of these ancient people from the land of pyramids, but we only here need to show that there was an Idealism.

An Egyptian sage once said to the Athenian Solon “You Greeks are still children. All you know is the outcome of your own contemplation and vision; you have no ancient traditions, no wisdom hoary with age, and children you will remain.” In rejecting eurocentric views on the topic we must remember that the Greeks looked up to the Egyptians. And so, Greek idealism took from Egyptian Idealism, and even the Germans took much indirectly from the Egyptians. In both however, we do not see a rejection of nature. Nature exists though heka, and so nature is not opposed to spirit as nature is spirit.

Rudolf Steiner did a study into German Idealism speaking on both Hegel and Schelling he points to Jakob Böhme. Jakob Böhme is for Hegel the first German philosopher, and so when we speak German Idealism we say it starts with this humble shoe maker read in alchemy and kabbalah. Thus we see the indirect impact of the Egyptians. Böhme in his the fifth point of his Six Mystical Points says like the Egyptians that the world is magick and magick is mental. Still at the start of German Idealism we do not see any rejection of Nature as here “Magic is the mother from which nature originates”. From the Idealism of the Egyptians up to German Idealism we see Idealism not rejecting nature but putting it into its proper place.

Speaking on Schelling Rudolf Steiner emphasizes the role of nature, but with Hegel he wants to emphasizes the super-sensible. Hegel moving deeper into the super-sensible did not however deny nature, but like those before wanted to see nature in its proper place. Still there can be said to be no objection between nature and spirit as nature is spirit. One of Hegel’s students Ignaz Paul Vital Troxler who wanted to go even deeper into the super-sensible still did not deny nature, but like those before wanted to see nature in its proper place. For the most part German Idealism from Böhme to Hegel wanted to put nature in its proper place.

Even when the goal of Idealism was to move beyond the demiurgic natural world it did not deny nature. Rudolf Steiner himself in his Outline of Occult Science says that matter is to spirit as ice is to water. There is for most Idealisms rightfully no objection between nature and spirit as nature is spirit. Gentile was wrong to deny nature, unlike these other Idealist who wanted nature to be in its proper place.

La Haine Analysis *spoiler warning* by Ezra S.

La Haine, or Hatred, is a 1995 French film starring Vincent Cassel, Hubert Kounde, and Said Taghmaoui. It surrounds their lives as young men, part of a restless generation, at a time of social unrest in the banlieues of Paris. If you haven’t watched it, I highly recommend you do. You can find it on Youtube in HQ with subtitles in a number of languages, including English.

If not, at least read a plot summary so my analysis makes sense. Kassovitz, the director, was inspired by a number of events that took place in France around the time of the films creation. For example, the killing of a young man named Makome M’Bowole, a Zairian (modern day Democratic Republic of Congo), who was shot in the head point blank by an officer who was threatening him with his gun. It was a pointless death, an accident, and free of hatred. But this sort of needless violence is what sows hatred, and it creates a cycle of violence in a failing society. Another case was that of Malik Oussekine, an Algerian student who was beaten to death by the police during a set of student protests that he was not a part of. The laws being protested were scrapped two days later. Clearly, police brutality is a major theme in the film, as well as race and class.

All three main characters are minorities. Vinz is a Jew, Said is an Arab, and Hubert is black. What unites them is their working class background in a deprived, crime ridden area of Paris. Hubert owned a gym which was burned down in the protests, and he returns to selling drugs to support his mother and sister. While Vinz and Said’s family lives aren’t discussed much, both of them are in similar positions to Hubert. Few opportunities, few role models, and a lot of rage. This rage presents itself most clearly in Vinz, who spends the whole film on the verge of murder. However, when he finally gets the chance to kill someone, his gun pointed against the forehead of a man who many would prefer to be dead, he can’t bring himself to pull the trigger. He even retches after letting him go. Hubert, who was encouraging Vinz to kill the man he had beaten, knew that it wasn’t in him. Despite his gangster persona, Vinz is not hateful enough to murder another. He impersonates Travis Bickle from Taxi Driver in the mirror, and aspires to be a dancer. He is not a murderer.

And then, he is killed. For no reason at all, an officer accidentally shoots him in the head. The events of the whole film are rendered meaningless, in a way. The character evolution of Vinz was pointless. The skinhead nazi he held at gunpoint likely didn’t change, and a life was lost in the end regardless; his own. Said, who didn’t want to see the darkness of pointless killing, is forced to watch Vinz die, and forced to watch Hubert, who spent the whole film trying to convince Vinz that murder was pointless, the one who catalyzed the change in him, takes revenge into his own hands. earlier in the film, Hubert tells Vinz that ‘La haine attire la haine.’ Hatred breeds hatred. Now, even though the death of Vinz contained no hatred from the officer, Hubert is continuing the cycle of violence. Vinz’s hatred for the police was justified in his death, and Hubert continues it, betraying his ideals, while Said can do nothing but watch.

As the movie ends, the opening lines are repeated. In these lines, the plot of the film can be found entirely, as well as the theme it presents, or more accurately, the reality it portrays.

‘It’s about a society on its way down. And as it falls, it keeps telling itself: “So far so good… So far so good… So far so good.” It’s not how you fall that matters. It’s how you land.’

War Mental Hygiene by Anonimo Milanese

*This is a translation. This article was originally published in Italian in Il Blast, Italy’s first Accelerationist blog/zine: War Mental Hygiene – Blast (ilblast.it)*

I know five guys, they are all what in the modern world we might say are: privileged. They are all five eager to go to war, not even to save any nation, or to serve their country: they are eager to fight, to scar, to hurt, to have a purpose.

Since when did war become, in our eyes, such a whore?
Since when, if you want to have that moment of happy feverish insomnia, you have to get loaded onto a ferry to Mariupol?
There is no war being talked about here, I mean man-on-man conflict. We speak only of peace, while continuing to inject the market with production, whether of weapons or medicine.
Where is mental hygiene? The only medicine that can free us from the paranoid nightmare of peace?

Putin declares war on Ukraine, for real this time. Troops reach Kiev, encircle the Capital, the West is in crisis, politics is split, the European Regime is on its last legs.
It imposes sanctions against the Russian Army, the Red Army, the Separatist Republics.
We needed it!
To bring the country, Italy and Europe back to reality, after the psychological massacre of putting up with only information on COVID for three years. We at Blast are waiting for the mental escalation!
Liberals gone mad, who will think about the market when the bombs fall? The European economy on its knees after embargoing Mother Russia, Futurist China and the craziest countries of the millennium. The West fell yesterday, today we gather its ashes to put them in the grave, and throw dirt, taxes, deaths at work, police beating up protesters, COVID certificates and other fine democracies on top of it.
We’ve been asleep too long, too long thinking about new doses, consumption, the pensive ecstasy of vaccines, decrees and the illusion of liberal democracy. Now we are at war, and war will be our psychotropic drug.
Don’t trust the Liberal State, it lies, it has already lost, it will do anything to say it is winning against entropy.
Politics is dead, let the guns do the talking.

And we’re up in arms again for you! Fucking Violence!

I know five guys. They live empty lives, like most of us (and for those who say their lives are complete, some empathy!) and with no clear purpose other than to fuck, eat and get back to mating. The hand holds the penis but does not hold the sword. Waking modern man up to war (women will be taken care of by Milanese Anonymous) is like taking and shooting yourself against the grain at a ball, then trying to make a baby. A complete useless suicide.

A man, often praised by the right wing, had said that war today is a total victory of mechanics, and that man has become subordinate to the machine. A worker, an arbeiter.
And that the First World War, from which he emerged with fourteen wounds and a Pour le Merite (something no one today can even think of doing, let alone the dickheads of the alt-right), was the Mother of mechanical warfare, against the previous wars, still fought by human beings and not by cogs.
After all: when the nation that governs us has 70% of its population obese or overweight, pressing buttons to drop bombs becomes so easy and convenient. Right Mr. Biden? My guess is if I gave you a spada you’d stick it in your arm, thinking it’s a different blade altogether (italian: Spada, a slang for syringe of heroin)

We at Blast say, war is based.
I, in my sacred use of the Blast matrix, say: Yes, but pressing buttons and commanding drones is not based, it’s just subjugation to machinery, it’s the cogs that’s doing the heroic deed.
Where are the cavalry charges? Where is the sound of cannons? Where is the pistol duel?
Where is war, the world’s only mental hygiene? Where are the memories broken and the bloodshed?

I have five friends, one of them plays sports, one watches anime, one makes YouTube videos, one is a real estate agent, one sings trap. All five of us, make that six (including me), are here today to make clear our intention to actively take the field and declare a Jihad, a true holy war, on the superstition of pacifism.
The liberal hypocrisy, left and right, is there for all to see, and there is no need to reveal it. All of a sudden, war becomes the new COVID, all of a sudden, every hostile country is a warmonger, and we are left with our penises in our hands, not with our rifles in search of a goal.

And in these difficult times, difficult for sanity, I would like a renewed futurism. An Ardito with a blade between his lips and a grenade in his fist, ready to blow up the frontal cortex of our brain, throwing a bomb at the stupid, clownish pacifist hypocrisy and freeing us from evil, from the real evil which is the lack of a certain aim, of a purpose.

The equation is simple: go to war, die or come back. Either way you have had an experience.
And we want this experience more than anything else.

Peasants and Criminals by Wald

Nietzsche said that “the criminal is a type of strong man under unfavorable conditions.” Similarly, the lumpenproletarian is a type of peasant under unfavorable conditions. He is the criminal or exiled type of the worker.
His being a negative force of pain leaves him as the final line of war and revolution. The peasant faces the most elemental forces, the first barbarian incursions; or he retreats into the cities as war becomes permanent. Either way, he is forced to survive beyond the national borders. The lumpenproletarian forms in this underworld, which is why he is close to the criminal. Fighting is not an ideological decision for him, it is the very force of his character.

Where the peasant is forced to fight there is a condition of the deepest poverty, which threatens from the primordial laws – in the worst crises the state will have to rule over starvation.
With the great conflicts landscapes are devastated, old relations erode, in certain cases one will have to abandon the territory. The lumpenproletarian is closest to the democratic erosion of land and will, he struggles on the ground of property and the neutralization of borders, rather than on technological or economic issues, thus political opposition is a natural condition for him. He fights from the will to power, or is its last sign, a memory of the dead. That one of the legendary anarchists was a grave robber is revealing.
Other legends are of nobles and princes forced into the criminal ranks. Mercenary warriors were the criminal heroes in the early wars of democracy, the civil wars turned against the nation itself. The noble holds out among the peasants, and sends a message to his Majesty to “lick his arse.” Then every hour becomes the eleventh. This type prefigured the partisan, which is of a pure revolutionary force, of nihilism rather than nobility.

With the defeat of the ancien regime strong men were forced to hold out in a similar manner, in a condition of criminality, the dwindling aristocracy, or sleep. Criminal organisations carry with them the last remnants of the ancien regime: struggle, danger, and oath, if not honour. “Mafiusu” once referred to the handsome, courageous, and enterprising man. It is also worth remembering that Hermes was both patron of criminals and herald of the gods, a guide of the underworld, spirits, boundaries. Blind wealth is no virtue, but during the great upheavals it becomes a weapon of justice. One may also say that the criminal is the worker turned mercenary – in the age of revolutions he must be his own hire. A Götz von Berlichingen is distinct from Robin Hood not only in how wealth is distributed, but also its very type.

The danger in class conflict is that it forces an illusory enemy, material conditions lead to a weakening of the political force, which is why the workers’ revolution can only be bourgeois and nihilist.
The real political opposition is with the Third Estate itself and the world order which creates it. Most of all, the worker must remain in contact with the political struggle, to know his real enemy, and only through such struggle can the Third Estate – which is a providential test rather than material question – become the force of a new order, a dominion which will allow the return of the old estates, or the creation of new ones.
To be resisted at all costs is the interim state, which is the political aspect of nihilism.

Augmented Reality by Anonymous

-Recording starts.
9:30 p.m. .
Chicago is the place.
This is Agent Nathan Forsythe.
I’m about to interview Dr. Jeremy Joule, former DARPA
technician.
Specific subject: the Project Purgatory incident.
Professor, would you like to begin or would you prefer me to
list some more technical data before we continue?

-As you said, my name is Jeremy Joule, I’m thirty-four years
old and I used to work as a national defense supervisor.
The last project I was assigned to…I was working with
Professor Henry Chavez, as a part of his equipe.
He already had his own office, he was well into DARPA, though
he was younger than me.-

-Chavez, the young promise of national cyberwarfare.
Sorry for the interruption…

-No, it’s okay, I’m having a little trouble talking right
now…

-I can see that, but relax.
We have all night and we got coffee and ice cream.
Eventually, I will accompany you home.
I would like you to return with your mind to Dr. Chavez, to
summarize your personal involvement, to make it easier for me to
write the report.-

-Well, officer…Chavez already created for our Nation the
maxifirewalls for 5G and the semi-autonomous malware filter DETOX.
He was a genius when it came to managing digital connections
and data traffic, so much that there were rumors in the offices that he could perceive data flows with his brain, a bit like those
migratory birds that can pinpoint directions with magnetic fields.
He was a national asset, more valuable than a general or a
secretary of state.
You understand that today we are back to Renaissance warfare,
with the super-specialized and restricted armies?-

-Of course, Professor: specialized armies acting and reacting
at lightning speed, so that the arsenals and bombers stay sleepy.
Therefore, their computing devices must be the ultimate in
technology and home support.-

-Exactly… the government has been investing billions of
dollars for years in experimental weapons but unfortunately we
won’t see anything truly revolutionary for another hundred years,
because the timeframe for scientific research is indeed long.-

-Chavez thought the same way you did?-

-No! He was much more superb, obsessed with speed…he wanted
to bring the magical speed of data traffic into the real world.
He was talking lucidly about the possibility of creating a new
reality, superior to the augmented reality proposed a few years
ago by private companies.
At times it seemed he was talking more about teleportation
technology than data transmission… you are aware of the concept
of teleportation, Officer?

-Pretty much, and I know that in the practical way of things,
if higher exoskeletons will take a hundred and fifty years,
teleportation awaits us in a millennium or have I heard
pessimistic rumors?-

-No no, too optimistic, officer! Techné has its own
weight, techné demands a tribute… a tribute that must not be
paid too quickly! But Chavez wouldn’t listen to reason… Oh God!-

-Have a glass of water, professor.
Want some ice cream?-

-Am I sweating, Officer?

-Yes but it’s hot and the fan isn’t too loud, so I don’t think
you’ll feel sick.
I need you, even at the cost of being cramped, not to withhold
any important details.-

-Officer, fifteen people died, all of them at the DARPA-
controlled X48 facility in Michigan, a secret facility used for
Chavez’s latest project…. we’re all researchers and five security
staff members.
The security measures proved not to be sufficient…not
sufficient at all!-

-It was an experiment involving a computer device, in an area
already controlled by satellite and with limited access.
With all due respect, doctor, no one expected anything like
this.-

-But you saw it, didn’t you? You saw what happened?-

-Sure professor: I was the first one to come and see what
happened and get you out from under that rubble.-

-And you… you also saw the conclusion! You saw what Chavez
had become! Or did I imagine it?-

-No, I can assure you that the event was traumatic and
disastrous.
I don’t want to belittle your suffering and the deaths of your
colleagues and security personnel, of course.
What happened was upsetting to me, and during my career this
is not the first time I have seen blood spilled in large
quantities.
And I didn’t see exactly what you saw, before I arrived.
I’m sorry.-

-There were no records saved, Officer.-

-That’s why your testimony is important, until we can get
something off the surviving hard drives.-

-Those databases and computers left whole should be
demagnetized and then burned, Agent Forsythe.
Chavez… your madness must remain buried in those ruins.
That technology… that madness!-

-Please, have some ice cream… slowly.-

-Thank you… Can I ask you something?-

-Sure.-

-Is there really a branch of the FBI that investigates
unexplained cases?-

-More like there is an urban legend about it.
Over the years, the government has commissioned a series of
special projects, with the more or less forced participation of
civilian specialists and various branches of the military and
security services.

These projects were official but approached in an
extraordinary way precisely because of their particularity.-

-But these projects appeared beginning in the 1930s, didn’t
they?-

-In the 1940s.-

-Like the Blue Book project? –

-Mhmmm.
That one in particular, though, is much later.
I guess you know what the final response of that work was: a
hole into water.
Reasonably, that small percentage of unexplained celestial
phenomena could not have aroused the government’s concern at all
more than the USSR’s projects could in reality.-

-Tell me, Officer, what about that story of hypnotic radio
signals from East Germany?-

-Interference and reverberations.
You know very well that if conspiracy theories were really
national secrets they wouldn’t appear in bookstores on multiple
best-selling titles.-

-Exactly, all those tactics are static screeching,
interference noise, right? And they’re meant to mask a hidden
transmission, aren’t they?-

-What are you suggesting, Doctor?-

-That conspiracy theories are used to cover up real mysteries
or real plots!-

-We’re getting off track here, Doctor.
Please return to the event…-

-Yeah, yeah… here’s what happened.
The project, the last project of Chavez…-

-This project was supposed to generate a prototype for a new
form of accelerated data sharing, capable of replacing the
artificial intelligences that have failed to deliver in recent
years.-

-Not just that.
I’m not claiming that Schadenfreude is something we can share,
of course…-

-Schaden what?-

-Joy in the misfortunes of others.
Did you see the explosions at the atomic laboratories in China
last year, officer?-

-Yes: another tragedy.-

-Caused by faulty artificial intelligence!-

-Exactly, but what does that have to do with anything?

-Listen, do you remember any of the old electronic games?
Before the collapse of the video game market?-

-Sort of.-

-You remember that the little men, the little figurines,
didn’t always work well, right?-

-Yes, I do. –

-Those were little artificial intelligences.
So, Chavez’s research to overcome the limits of traditional
artificial intelligence can be justified.
Many experts realized that, eventually, the idea of creating
augmented minds could be a viable replacement for the creation of
supercomputers that were too flawed or had little empathy for the
human realities they were supposed to help…
But believe me, officer, when I say that Chavez was not
motivated by humanitarian or patriotic motives: his scientific
curiosity was purely devoted to his own ambition, to the way he
wanted to shape reality in accordance with his own desires…-

-Doctor, describe Chavez’s project to me and please without
getting too carried away.
This will become an official report.-

-Yes, officer.
Chavez’s project was called, in both development and official
stages, Purgatory Network.
In essence, a more advanced version of state-of-the-art Cloud
technology, wired with highly efficient antennas, cameras and
projectors.
State-of-the-art computer processors combined with the wonders
of the entertainment industry.
Entertainment industry… what an ugly definition.-

-Well doctor, let’s be thankful that the movie business
collapsed along with electronic games. -Well, doctor, let’s be
thankful that the movie business collapsed along with electronic
games.-

-That’s right, Chavez often made jokes about that, too, and
said how all those people lacked perspective… that they hadn’t
been able, as he put it, to imagine the future.-

-The future as Chavez saw it.-

-Exactly.
Chavez proposed to our superiors and government
representatives the creation of a new form of shared human
intelligence, which would allow us to replace unreliable
artificial intelligences and maintain the supremacy of our Nation
in the world.-

-That is, to avoid being surpassed by the Chinese.

-More or less.
In fact, what they saw in Chavez’s idea was the invention of a
super-technological form of War Room…. if the Purgatory data
sharing system could also support something different than a group
of researchers able to share data with each other, as it is the
case in normal virtual reality.
Even a group of military personnel creating a project
together, present in different locations and with different data
packages…even that could have been possible!-.

-The Purgatory system wasn’t just a cloud system, what made it
special compared to what we already have?-

-Data shared on this network didn’t just come from devices.
The augmented reality manipulation systems were hardwired to
the users’ sensory organs and responded to stimuli emitted by the
users at the neurological level.-

-So the users of the system could see for themselves what was
going on, the information they were sending and receiving?-

-Much more! They could visualize consequences of their nerve
stimuli reprocessed by the system, thanks to the holographic
projectors even into the spacial perimeter of the building and not
only on their ocular and auditory peripherals, agent.-

-Are you suggesting that they could make their own thoughts
appear as holographic images or manifest actually with that
system?-

-You… you very quickly understood the nature of what Chavez
wanted to accomplish…-

-I had suspected something like that and I think it explains
well with what happened.
There seems to have been some sort of collective hysteria at
the facility.
That would explain the devastation.-

-I saw the whole thing, and you come pretty close to the
truth, but really, you should have seen what was going on.
You could project images and graphs and equations into the air
like a science fiction movie and even translate thoughts and
feelings into colors, figures and writing… Chavez had created
something incredible, and I assure you that no one, even though he
claimed to have explained the specifics, understood what was going
on!-

-Excuse me, you didn’t understand how the system could
illustrate your thoughts?-

-No, it was so natural, spontaneous… we could easily
communicate even from one room to another by sending a thought or
an illustration, and even combine them.-

-Such technology should be impossible by our current
standards.-

-Yes, but I guarantee there was something unnatural about it!
Magic! Chavez always seemed to have the upper hand, though.-

-What do you mean? –

-Maybe because he was the inventor, but he certainly had much,
much more control over the mechanism than we did.
His mastery was such that he modified himself through the
system.-

-What do you mean? His perception of himself?-

-More or less.
He was just using the system to project images onto his own
figure, changing his clothes at will, and even his own appearance.
And then… then he started to change everything.-

-Explain yourself, please. –

-He could… run faster, roll like a ball, grab every object.
At one point he had taken to turning into a cowboy and waving
a gun with an overly long barrel, blathering things like, “You
ain’t gonna run faster than my bullets, stranger.”-

-Excuse me, don’t you believe that your sensory capabilities
have been altered by Chavez to deceive and manipulate you to the
point of making you believe that reality was not only augmented,
but transformed?-

-Well, we understood that… but how can I put this when there
are no surviving recordings? Chavez had become capable of running
from room to room at an absurd speed, jumping four meters forward

from a standstill, and floating through the air… he seemed to
have become a living cartoon, like in “Who Framed Roger Rabbit.”-

-And he used this power of his to scare you, didn’t he? –

-Yes.
He said we were stupid and lacking in foresight and that we
were only serving him as computing processors.
He said he wanted to expand his system into the normal
network, that he wanted to change the world… he said that with
his Purgatory system, there would be no more distinction between
the real world and the world of the imagination.
The ghosts of the night would walk among the living and the
gods would sit again on the seats of Olympus, he repeated in the
last days.-

-Didn’t you try to call for help?

-We were in his power… we didn’t know if outside they agreed
with him, if instead we all had to be sacrificed for the
project…-

-And yet, you fought, or didn’t you? How else would you
explain the slaughter I found?-

-We… we had to do something, don’t you think? You said so
yourself! There was no time to call for help, Chavez had to be
stopped now!-

-Calm down, take a breath.-

-That monstrosity… Purgatory was a hoax, an excuse, a
terrible lie! He didn’t want to create a new augmented reality, he
wanted to destroy the real world, the world wanted and created by
God, and replace it with a satanic counterfeit! He wanted to turn America into Bosch’s garden of delights, with everyone losing
their heads behind ghosts that had become so real they could prey
on the living!-

-Please, you’re getting too hot.
First I motivated you to focus and talk, but now you’re in
danger of collapsing.-

-We figured out how to manipulate the system, how to project
our will, and we launched a counter-attack… for a whole day, we
projected our thoughts against Chavez’s, against that devil… he
took us one by one with the force of his unbridled diabolical
will, without restraints, scruples, no longer human and no longer
beast, but something completely different.
Yet, in the end, we got him… we reasoned like him, we
trapped him in an illogical circuit where he annihilated himself.
We had to take his gun and funnel it into a long bizarre form
like the one in the Tex Avery cartoons, and then… we turned his
energy on him.
He shot himself.
It cost us so much effort…only I stayed alive…-.

-The subject is unconscious but still alive.
We need to make sure he gets psychiatric help.
Most likely the trauma of the experience will be removed from
his memory.
Nothing seems to be left of the Purgatory mechanism.
I insert a personal assessment for the other members of the
association: I propose to have the project deleted and any
possible remaining components or back-ups destroyed.
I believe that our experts in paranormal and ESP matters will
be more helpful than computer consultants in understanding this
aberration.
Our war will be won with guns and blades, not smoke and
mirrors.

It is now a quarter past ten.
End of recording. –

To a Sodomite Nationalism by Soltheist

The Dance, Henri Matisse

The question has always been assimilation and destruction of our identity, or a just hostility and scorn for the wretched world which entrapped us. When I say scorn, I mean limitless hate of the invasive enemy, of the invisible enemy, of the assaulting hordes.

All acts are justified by virtue of self-defense, there are no excuses to be made for the terror. You are completely alien to them, you are foreign to them and they are foreign to you. Their actions against you did not need to happen, so our actions against them are necessitated. There is no action taken against the enemy which is wrong. It is righteous to destroy their sickly reality. Triumph awaits the martyred and the veteran among us, failure awaits the softened underbelly and those who hide away from just action.

To a sodomite nationalism, and to victory in martyrdom or a victory with the living. Avanti.

The State of Neuburg By Melontyp

Chapter one
Finally, a glimpse of the great island where artists and various fanatics form a society on an extravagant tropical island. It took me too much time to fly to Cuba and to sail from there. After the Ship halted and I could finally leave, my papers got controlled by two rather fashionable soldiers. One Soldier was wearing a Japanese headband like the one Mishima wore on his final day, a black Balaclava under that, an extra white wife beater with the states badge sewed on it and wide black pants with leather boots under it. The other soldier almost didn’t look like a soldier at all. Instead he walked around with a very aesthetically pleasing purple/orange Hawaiian shirt with a Marlboro cigarette pack in his front pocket, classic pilot sunglasses that fit his long hair, short red pants while he wore white sneakers while wearing his State Badge around his neck like a detective. On this Island, soldiers are very free to wear what they want as long they can perform their duty in their outfits, the only thing they all have is their badge, a gun and a melee weapon. They let me through and I could finally start to explore the city and head to my hotel. The street lamps were made out of white stone, the stone was twisted so it looks like there was a tiny stair where mice could climb up to the umbrella type lamp on top. There was even a streetlamp disguised as a palm tree, to blend in with the many different palm trees scattered around the whole city. The Street is painted in pure black, while the footpath is painted in very abstract and colourful patterns that look hypnotizing. Almost all of these buildings were white, there are designed in such shapes that they seem brutal, enormous, powerful and over the top. Every window hat a different colour, everywhere on the buildings were neon lights to accompany them. The whole city gives such a neo-80s feeling like a Vaporwave album cover. However on the inside of those houses the people are free to decorate it however they want. That bookshop on the left is full of Bolshevist symbolism, the coiffeur near the gym is absolutely owned by a member of Hamas, the gym itself is built in honour of Mussolini and the church interior looks it was built in the 9th Century. The People themselves dress up so weird you can’t walk around like that in a normal Country. We got soldiers from another era, people still stuck in the 80s, national costume from different nations, mafioso’s, futurist clothing, terrorists, punks and people mixing whatever clothes they want to. Honestly a normal black suit makes me look like a complete stranger here. When I arrived inside of the Hotel, I was shocked by how unreal it looked like. The floor was black with pink lines stretching themselves all over it, the walls where a bit white when they touched the floor but otherwise were painted in an elegant light blue. Also on the walls were pictures of Mussolini and some of his Quotes like “All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state” or “Let us have a dagger between our teeth, a bomb in our hands and an infinite scorn in our hearts”. There were Roman pillars lightly shined on by the blue neon light, simple but comfortable looking armchairs were scattered all over the room with modern tables to accompany them. The receptions table was like out of roman marble and there was a statue of Mussolini’s enormous head and the music of this place was definitely some Vaporwave stuff. I recognized the rceptionist, it was my old friend named Mia. She came here 2 years prior to me and even got a tan. Her dress was rectangular, colourful and abstract, with a white Shirt under that and black thighs to the knee.
“Hello Mia, how are you today?”
“Bernd? Oh hello, yeah things are fine hope you are fine as well, anyway what brings you here on this island?”
“I got a job as brewer here, I got to be in this hotel for at least a week until I can find an apartment.”
“Wait, at Kaiser Ludwig? Respect. So for your room, it will be number 306 on the third floor and what money do you have on you?”
“I got Euros of course.”
“It costs 315 Euros, but for you only 300.”
“I thank you very much, also how about you show me the city a bit tomorrow?”
“Sure, tomorrow I got free so come around 1pm here again.”
“Sounds great”
Then I went off to my room, in front of the Reception Table was the first floor with an Elevator at the end. Along the walls where Futurist type of paintings, I assume the people of this island made it themselves. The floor was a marble white, with purple neon lights to shine on the floor and walls. Inside of the elevator, the buttons where scattered on the colourful walls with other fake buttons, it took me a bit to find the button for floor 3. The third floor walls were crimson red, the floor was black and the ceiling was with yellow neon light and on the walls were, to my surprise, paintings of various famous Communists like Lenin and Guevara. “How” I thought to myself, “how was this possible to exist, what is with inner decoration from Fascist to Communist? I have to ask Mia about that tomorrow.” Well, the door of my Room was out of dark oak wood. Stepping inside it looked rather simple. A big white bed, a cabinet made out of iron and glass, a dark oak wood cabinet with a flat screen TV on top. Everything else was white, except the oak floor. The bathroom looked normal and there was also a small balcony with a golden ashtray. The lights here are too neon lights and you could change the colour with remote control. Seriously, the people here have a weird obsession with neon lights, I have many questions on how this place works but I will rest for tonight.