skip to Main Content
Mussolini reviewing Volunteer Militia for National Security

A Reconstructive Revolution – Part 3

Series: A Reconstructive Revolution

If we are to prevail, it will be through unity, hierarchy, and authority.

More work by Richard Heathen can be found at https://www.libertymachinenews.com/.

The myth of totalitarianism is a fairytale spun by the propagandists of this modern age. Every system of government to exist now or ever to exist has an official ideology or metapolitical narrative from which it derives its legitimacy, as well as its perception of morality, customs, and norms. That ideology justifies not only the existing political order, but also the position of those who hold power. In the post-World-War-II international order, that legitimacy comes primarily from the defeat of the Axis Powers. From a historical analysis emphasizing and exaggerating the brutality of the Axis Powers, while sweeping the brutality of the Allies under the rug, the Western intelligentsia, has created a narrative of the ‘good’ war, justifying the existing international and social order of the Western powers.

Any ruling class will punish actions, agitation, and behaviour that runs counter to, and threatens the stability of, its ideology; it will do so sometimes in small ways, sometimes in more extreme ways.

Any ruling class will punish actions, agitation, and behaviour that runs counter to, and threatens the stability of, its ideology; it will do so sometimes in small ways, sometimes in more extreme ways. It is therefore no surprise that the current system would ruthlessly punish anyone attempting to undermine its official ideology, as this kind of metapolitical warfare is a direct threat to the legitimacy of the ruling clique. This is why states will punish one set of dissidents more than others. Some dissidents are merely political critics; while they act against the system, they do so in such a way that does not challenge its ideological foundation, nor the narrative supporting its legitimacy. On the other hand, other types of dissidents are so radical that their very existence is a fundamental refutation of the moral and ethical justification of the system itself. These pose a much greater threat, and will be dealt with more seriously.

The dominant culture today is no less ‘totalitarian’ with its speech codes, diversity quotas, and ‘human rights’ than this portrait suggests. They allow no more true dissent than the Gestapo agents of the Third Reich. There is no private sphere in today’s world into which one can retreat to escape today’s democratic regime of human rights. One may not make any private civil society organization that flouts the moral commandments of the official ideology of the system. To be sure, one can have a private club that simply gathers in a private home; but the moment attempt is made to incorporate this group or bring it in any practically meaningful sense within the public sphere, it will come under attack by the ideological enforcers of the current social order.

If such an organization were to defy the humanistic moral code dictated by today’s system it risks being brought before a prejudicial judiciary so ideologically uncompromising that it would rival the caricatures drawn of Fascist courts. In many nations, to give but a single example of the current limitations, such organizations may not possess standards of membership which prohibit entry to the well-established protected classes of the neo-proletariat, nor may they say or publish things that offend individuals who are members of said protected classes.

If a man is exposed as holding the wrong beliefs, his life will likely be ruined. He can be unceremoniously stripped of his livelihood and he will be ejected from polite society. This in automatic response to the outcry of fanatical mobs acting as ideological shock troops, weaponizing histrionics and agitation against their political enemies. A man ostracized for believing the wrong things will not even be permitted to gather with like-minded individuals in a public space. Any attempt to do so will provoke the aforementioned mobs. They will not be punished; if you attempt to defend yourself, however, you will be.

Beyond that, if the system discovers any political dissident working in the political sphere, its ideological agents (aka ‘activists’) will target this figure, and those within the system will make sure he is dealt with severely. When an Antifa operative, Eric Clanton attacked right-wing activists with a bike lock on a chain, causing bodily injury in several people, and was charged with four counts of felony assault with a deadly weapon, he was given a slap on the wrist in the form of three-year probation.1

In comparison, people on the dissident right have been systemically targeted by the powers that be. Members of the Rise Above Movement have been indicted on charges of crossing state lines in order to incite or participate in a riot, for simply defending themselves when they were attacked by leftist agitators while attending the infamous rally in Charlottesville in 2017.2 The Charlottesville rally was meant to protest the removal of a Confederate monument. Violence broke out when the police were ordered by the mayor’s office to stand down, breaking the agreement the police had made with event organizers to keep the peace and contain left-wing ‘counter-protesters’. Their inaction allowed violence to break out when leftist agitators attacked the event attendees. When the police eventually did intervene they declared the event an ‘unlawful assembly’ and ordered the event attendees to leave. All of this, despite the fact the organizers had a permit and a court order overturning the dictates of Charlottesville City officials to shutdown the event, or have it moved. This was an intentional strategy to get the event shut down. According to an independent investigation by Hunton & Williams, an independent law firm based out of Richmond VA,

Chief Thomas’s response to the increasing violence on Market Street was disappointingly passive. Captain Lewis and Chief Thomas’ personal assistant Emily Lantz both told us that upon the first signs of open violence on Market Street, Chief Thomas said ‘let them fight, it will make it easier to declare an unlawful assembly.’3

The police then funnelled the event attendees into the crowd of counter-protesters, which action caused the violence that day. Despite being the aggressors, none of the leftist agitators, to the best of my knowledge, were ever charged. Certainly none of the so-called ‘counter protesters’ were charged with crossing state lines in order to incite or participate in a riot. Only the attendees from the dissident right had these charges brought against them.

This is, of course, because the leftists represent the ideology of the system. These leftists and their various branches, funded by the bourgeois moneyed class, have been engaging in their own cultural revolution, slowly working to overthrow the bourgeois order, using an alliance of ascendant neo-proletarians as so many blunt tools to consolidate their power, much like Mao Zedong mobilized the youth during the cultural revolution in China, as a weapon against his political enemies.4

As the neo-proletariat rises, so do the values of the slave. While the international economic system is still dominated by finance capital, the proletarianization of general society is well underway, and victimhood is now worn like a badge of honour. Leftist groups are now beginning to conflict with one another, competing with each other as to whose members have been most victimized. The idealization of mass appeal is becoming ever more pronounced. The coalition of the neo-proletariat is climbing ever higher on the social latter, as can be seen from a variety of signs, be it the normalization of the mental illness known as transgenderism, or the ever more non-whites entering positions of power under the banner of ‘diversity’. Every institution at every level of society is seeing ever greater numbers of neo-proletarians enter its ranks. Even the royal family of England betrays as much; Meghan Markle, a mixed-race American divorcee, has married Prince Henry of the British Royal family, and happens to be three years his senior. This represents the dissolution of several traditional standards.

Those who see beyond the obvious falsehood of the contemporary world are incentivized to go along to get along, lest they are made into examples for daring to defy the ideology of the system.

All of this is the result of a cultural revolution by the united forces of global subversion, the agents of the capitalist and proletarian classes. This revolution is only the latest push in a steady decline that roughly began during the French and American Revolutions.

It has infected every aspect of our culture, and has proved remarkably self-perpetuating. People are indoctrinated into it from childhood through constant repetition of carefully chosen vocabulary and mantras. Those who see beyond the obvious falsehood of it all are incentivized to go along to get along, lest they end up like those discussed above, made into examples for daring to defy the ideology of the system.

Education in our late Western World has been systematically designed to inculcate the ideology of the system as aggressively and as uncompromisingly as any Fascist state. The German National Socialists would marvel, not only at how efficiently and completely our masters of so-called education are able to indoctrinate children into the system’s ideology, but also at the speed at which this system, through a cultural revolution of its own, was able to completely reverse and invert tremendously long-standing social norms, such as the taboo against homosexuality and transgenderism. In the course of mere decades, individuals once regarded as sexual deviant outcasts have been transformed into brave role models deserving of praise and emulation.

From the delegitimization of Christianity to the new orthodoxy on race, the ruling clique have solidified their power through a complete overhaul of previously held norms, along with the formation of a coalition of ‘victimized’ groups, using neo-Marxism as a banner under which to rally their unlikely coalition. This alliance of purported outcasts and underdogs easily transforms into the most zealous advocate of the system itself, for its members intuitively understand that that system is responsible for their elevation in status, and fear that, should the system collapse, they would go back to their previous station.

The end goal is a global society and the ‘end of history’, as most recently heralded by Francis Fukuyama. This represents the utopian aim of liberalism and Marxism, both of which believe in eventual achievement of heaven on Earth and an end to the unfolding of the violent upheavals of history. They envision a bright future in which human beings will be as house pets, free to consume and pursue mindless amusements. While this is sold as a dream, if the modern day is any indication, it will be the ultimate nightmare.

This view of inevitable utopia is at odds with the Fascist vision of time and space:

Fascism rejects the absurd conventional falsehood of political equity, the habit of collective responsibility, and the myth of indefinite progress and happiness.5

Fascist philosophy understands the rise and inevitable decline of high cultures. This concept was detailed in length in Decline of the West by German philosopher Oswald Spengler. Spengler’s work had an immense impact on all Fascist thinkers in the first half of the twentieth century, from the leader of the British Union of Fascists, Oswald Mosley, to Benito Mussolini himself. Spengler’s work underlined the impetus for the Fascist projects. Fascism represents a stand against the forces of decay and decline in its heralding of a return to the martial virtues and vitalism of earlier ages. These were ages when life was not a question to be solved, when the continuation of our nations and traditions was not up for debate. Ages where the very idea of apologizing or ‘being sorry’ for the victories and conquering spirit of our forefathers would not have been so much as imagined as a legitimate attitude, much less embraced as the moral norm. Fascism represents the healthy and natural urge to hold the forces of chaos at bay and to establish a cultural and spiritual Renaissance, by declaring war on both the agents of global subversion, and the culture of weakness and decay which they tow in their wake.

[I]f [Fascism] can be considered not as an outward display of sensational aspects, but as an inward message of [a] new philosophy of life – that philosophy of life that is to take the place of our glorified and, nevertheless, so poignantly unsatisfactory because so brutally destructive, Individualism – it is then still possible that the prophesied ‘Decline of the West’ may be definitely halted and, in its stead, we may witness the birth of a new and greater Renaissance.6

Fascism was born out of the chaos of the post-WWI era, and thus at its inception gathered together many contradictory elements, such as populism and elitism. This can be seen on the one hand as the brotherhood of the warrior class that fought together in the trenches, and on the other the innate desire to institute legitimate authority based on warrior and martial principles.

While Fascism can be seen as a revolt against secularism and modernity, it itself was partially secular, and harboured elements of modernity with it. A passage from ‘The Doctrine of Fascism’ is worth quoting here:

Monarchical absolutism is a thing of the past, and so is the worship of the church power. Feudal privileges and division into impenetrable castes with no connection between them are also have beens…7

Indeed, many Fascist contemporaries were very concerned with those aspects of the revolution which appeared to their eyes too modern and progressive. If the Fascist revolution had been able to fulfil itself, however, it is very likely that it would have been purified, and the higher transcendent aspects would have prevailed against the elements within it that contradicted its inner imperative.

No one claims that there was a very clear discrimination between the essential and the accessory in these currents, that in them the idea was confronted by people of high quality who understood it, or that various influences arising from the very forces that had to be combatted had been overcome. The process of ideological purification would have taken place at a later time, once some immediate and unavoidable political problems had been resolved. But even so it was clear that a marshalling of forces was taking shape, representing an open challenge to ‘modern’ civilization…8

Thus, after the invasion of Abyssinia, the Italian Fascist Party did pass legislation regarding race. It sought to preserve the distinction between indigenous Italians and their North African subjects. The preservation of this distinction can be seen as fitting the mould of the Indian caste system. The Fascist state also created an honoured place for the Catholic Church within its fledgling society, providing both prestige and status for the Church and her agents.

Against the unbridled liberty of the individual, the Fascists brought authority. Against the levelling concept of egalitarianism, they brought hierarchy. Against class warfare, they brought unity.

Fascism fought against the forces of decay and subversion, against the degradation of national life caused by both the agitation of the proletariat and the indifference and paralyzing decadence of the bourgeoisie. Through pure instinct, Fascists fought against the forces that were degrading the dignity of their nations, and have continued to do so ever since the end of the Second World War. Against the unbridled liberty of the individual, they brought authority. Against the levelling concept of egalitarianism, they brought hierarchy. Against class warfare, they brought unity. Against rule by money, they brought the heroic ideal, as exemplified on the battlefield. Against every degrading instinct of the modern world, they brought the diametric opposite. It was, and still can be, as Evola suggests, a reconstructive revolution:

Fascism appears to us as a reconstructive revolution, in that it affirms an aristocracy and spiritual concept of the nation, as against both socialist and internationalist collectivism and the democratic and demagogic notion of the nation. In addition, its scorn for the economic myth and its election of the nation in practice to the degree of ‘warrior nation’, marks positively the first degree of this reconstruction, which is to re-subordinate the values of the ancient casts of the ‘merchants’ and the ‘slaves’ to the values of the immediately higher caste. The next step would be the spiritualization of the warrior principle itself.9

It is possible that under the banner of such a Fascism, the men of the West might once again find their dignity and their strength, enough to finally exorcise – both the degrading instincts that pervade our nations, and the forces of chaos that permeate the international system. If we are to prevail, it will be through a philosophy of vitality, unity, hierarchy, and authority.

References

4Frank Dikötter, The Cultural Revolution: A People’s History, 1962–1976 (Bloomsbury Press, 2017).

5 Benito Mussolini, ‘The Doctrine of Fascism’ 1932.

6 Mario Palmieri, The Philosophy of Fascism, The Dante Alighieri Society, 1936.

7 Benito Mussolini, ibid.

8 Julius Evola, A Traditionalist Confronts Fascism (Arktos Media Ltd., 2015).

9 Julius Evola, The Metaphysics of War (Arktos Media Ltd., 2011).

This Post Has One Comment
  1. Patriotic Americans are the real minority! Even most “Conservatives” are more loyal to The State of Israel than they are to their own country. So many wars, during the 20th Century, but we are only allowed to feel good about The Second World War. We are certainly not allowed to feel good about US Military involvement in Vietnam. No, we are all supposed to feel bad about that one.

    Why are we compelled to feel so very good about US Involvement in The Second World War, but not US Involvement in Vietnam, or any other war in the 20th Century. Sometimes, I ponder exactly that!

Leave a Reply

The comment section of Arktos Journal will be regulated by standards consonant to the principles of the project itself. Our general rules are as follows:

  • Comments will not be moderated on the basis of the opinions expressed (controversy is welcome), but rather on their quality.
  • Contributors are requested to obey the rules of civility, without which all discourse is null, and to avoid crude personal attacks. Wit is welcome, but argument, and not insult, will be the expected means of refutation.
  • Obscenities, vulgarity and slurs will not be tolerated.
  • Contributors are invited to check their contributions for general grammatical correctness (allowances will obviously be made for second-language speakers) and logical cohesiveness.

As a general guideline, all contributors should imagine that they are speaking their minds aloud in a public space, unhindered by political correctness but bound to the older standards of honour and decency in speech.

All decisions of the moderators are final.

Back To Top