Accept defeat, whether it was rigged or not, and change strategy

submitted by [deleted] from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]NeoRail 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

The issue with accelerationism is that it makes zero sense unless it is paired with an intelligent overarching strategy which simply does not exist. That's why a lot of guys interpret it in a Justin Trudeau-like "when you lose, you win" fashion. As it stands right now, most accelerationists seem to think that accelerating towards increasingly farcical forms of liberalism is the same as accelerating towards productive political change.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah I find people who invoke the term usually just apply it to whatever they want to happen, it's a meaningless cope. The system's going to do what it's going to do and our work must be done regardless of how fast the system is moving towards its goals.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Have you read Men Among the Ruins? Interested in your thoughts on chapters 14 & 16 (especially 16) of it since you disagreed with me about United Europe in the past and Evola seems to be someone who influences a lot of your views.

[–]NeoRail 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I have not read the whole book, but I have read some chapters before (including sixteen) and glanced through some of the others. I reread both chapters to refresh my memory. I can't recall what we have disagreed on before, but personally I have been growing increasingly convinced in the necessity of Pan-Europeanism lately, despite its apparent impossibility and comparative unpopularity when compared to a more old school sovereignty-oriented nationalism. Unapologetic Pan-Europeanism may be seemingly impractical, but if approached considerately it probably provides the most substantial basis for change.

As to the contents of the chapters themselves, it seems to me that Evola has analysed the situation well. As it stands right now, there is little justification for a united Europe outside of a defiant, collective chauvinism derived "out of necessity". Pan-European sympathies seem most in fashion with groups the primary concern of which is the physical preservation of whatever is still left of Europe, rather than constructive unity based on a substantial sense of identity or durable principles. Broadly speaking, there is no will for a united Europe that falls outside the opposition to the current liberal status quo. All the major forces that could have been the source and center of that will are also spiritually and politically bankrupt or nonexistent today - I think the Catholic Church was a great example, though ironically it was far more credible in Evola's time than it is today.

The most important part of chapter sixteen is probably the one dedicated to the practical side of things. I have no expectations from aristocratic circles, which today seem to be very strongly associated with liberalism, but a European order united in its own identity, values, culture and traditions seems like the most suitable approach to Pan-Europeanism. A free, voluntary, international organisation defined by its mission would be capable of retaining its essential strategic direction all the while preserving its independence from and freedom of action in regards to the local political circumstances. In the event of success, such an order could also provide the future character of a potential Pan-European superstate. None of this is very probable, but given the situation I think it's a very good model.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

The original disagreement was something along the line of you thinking united Europe would entail the destruction of local culture and identity because of mixing, the state potentially pushing a standardisation of a single language etc.

but a European order united in its own identity, values, culture and traditions seems like the most suitable approach to Pan-Europeanism. A free, voluntary, international organisation defined by its mission would be capable of retaining its essential strategic direction all the while preserving its independence from and freedom of action in regards to the local political circumstances. In the event of success, such an order could also provide the future character of a potential Pan-European superstate. None of this is very probable, but given the situation I think it's a very good model.

Agreed. He mentioned the SS in the chapter which is a group that I think was on the road to achieving almost exactly what he's looking for. The Legionaries also had a great model we should study and try to emulate. There's a lot to be learned from the past too, Sparta and medieval military orders for example have a lot of things we can learn from in terms of building a suitable model. I don't think larping is the answer though, we must be men of our times and thus we need an aesthetic that is kind of archeofuturistic. I particularly like the Rise Above Movement for this on the aesthetic level. I think we should emulate this kind of formula for the outward appearance and then internally we need to be living according to principles, have initiation rites, some sort of asceticism, as well as doing community work and trying to build a mass movement. Evola is much too harsh and rigid on mass participation/democracy/populism, he seems to think you can just build a group of elites and start an already-perfected state out of thin air by appealing to already existing elites or something whereas I agree with you that they're all just agents of libtardism and finance, I think our only path to power has been shown by the PNF and NSDAP. We need to take power through populist means (the largest obstacle already) then begin the transition to a true state whilst somehow not being destroyed by international finance in another insane war.

[–]NeoRail 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The original disagreement was something along the line of you thinking united Europe would entail the destruction of local culture and identity because of mixing, the state potentially pushing a standardisation of a single language etc.

Overemphasis on centralisation and a lack of autonomy is certainly one possible option. Another possible problem is that without a geopolitical center, there's the risk of infighting. To give an example of a state that Evola viewed highly, in the Holy Roman Empire the Germans played a central role even though the state itself wasn't explicitly German. In the current context it is far more difficult to determine if any country could fill that role, if the role is still necessary and how the problem should be tackled if it does prove to be necessary.

He mentioned the SS in the chapter which is a group that I think was on the road to achieving almost exactly what he's looking for.

I have been noticing an uptick of interest in the concept of the Ordenstaat recently, which I think is curious. Apart from their mysticism, Evola was also favourable towards the SS before and during the war, though they weren't as favourable towards him.

There's a lot to be learned from the past too, Sparta and medieval military orders for example have a lot of things we can learn from in terms of building a suitable model.

This was a popular idea during the 20th century. Evola spent a good amount of time writing about the ideal of chivalry, knightly orders and the crusades, since he considered those to be great points of reference. The French also experimented with those themes - Maurras and Action Française put some emphasis on knighthood. I believe there was also a Vichy government-associated paramilitary unit during the Second World War that specifically designed its image around the concept of the knightly order. You could probably even find some knight themed recruitment posters in French, if you look for them.

Evola is much too harsh and rigid on mass participation/democracy/populism, he seems to think you can just build a group of elites and start an already-perfected state out of thin air by appealing to already existing elites or something whereas I agree with you that they're all just agents of libtardism and finance,

This only occurred to me just now, but maybe in the immediate postwar era appealing to the elites and to the masses may have seemed equally hopeless, in which case appealing to the elite would be the preferable option. Politically effective mass discontent is a very recent phenomenon, after all. With that said, Evola did acknowledge the absolute necessity to vigorously engage with the masses, once suitable conditions are in place. I feel that the main reason he emphasises elitism so much is for the purpose of building organisations and informal networks that prioritise quality over quantity. That's how I interpreted it, at least.

I think our only path to power has been shown by the PNF and NSDAP.

PNF was one of the French parties, right?

We need to take power through populist means (the largest obstacle already) then begin the transition to a true state whilst somehow not being destroyed by international finance in another insane war.

The challenge with populism consists in being populist enough to take power but not so populist as to dilute your principles beyond the point of no return. For example, Trump is a right wing populist, but his populism is an end rather than a means. Every right winger feels less distant to Trump than to the average liberal career politician, but Trump still can't offer anything other than what a career politician can offer.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I have been noticing an uptick of interest in the concept of the Ordenstaat recently, which I think is curious. Apart from their mysticism, Evola was also favourable towards the SS before and during the war, though they weren't as favourable towards him.

Do you know why they didn't like him? I would have thought someone like Himmler would have much in common with Evola.

His two articles about the SS 'The SS, Guard & Order of the Revolution of the Swastika' and 'A Castle of the Order' are great reads btw if you or someone reading this hasn't read them and are interested.

PNF was one of the French parties, right?

PNF was the National Fascist Party but whatever the spelling and grammar would be in Italian.

The challenge with populism consists in being populist enough to take power but not so populist as to dilute your principles beyond the point of no return. For example, Trump is a right wing populist, but his populism is an end rather than a means. Every right winger feels less distant to Trump than to the average liberal career politician, but Trump still can't offer anything other than what a career politician can offer.

I'd class him as a demagogue precisely for this reason. He speaks to the people but doesn't act to benefit them. A populist would do beneficial things for the whole, rather than a specific caste, regardless of their popularity. Trump spoke to the popular appetites and whims of the people but then acted to benefit the oligarchic caste only, essentially the opposite of populism.

[–]NeoRail 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Do you know why they didn't like him? I would have thought someone like Himmler would have much in common with Evola.

As far as I understand it, it is just a typical case of resisting external criticism. The SS already had their own brand of neopagan mysticism they were attached to and since Evola saw his chief duty in correcting errors precisely on this metaphysical level, tension was unavoidable. Himmler valued texts like the Bhagavad Gita very highly, so maybe he could have been persuaded by Evola to consider a Traditionalist perspective, but I am not sure if he ever reviewed Evola's work personally. After an initial period of mutual acquaintance, there were some SS reports that deemed Evola irrelevant for the purposes of the SS, but I believe those were the work of lower ranked officers. If you are interested in the more direct differences between Evola and the SS, you can see Evola making some reference to them in the essays you linked, like for example the works of Rosenberg. There was a certain type of occultism in vogue in Nazi Germany at the time, based around a purely naturalistic worldview, as well as the thought of people like Rosenberg and those in the secrets societies that Rudolf Hess had been a member of in the past. The upper limit for that type of audience would be something like the work of Savitri Devi, who always retained biology as the main element of her writing. In contrast, to Evola all these things were, while important, still a part of a greater spiritual whole that gave meaning to its elements rather than vice versa. Since most of his writing is very explicit about this, the groups with strong naturalistic orientations or influences didn't like him very much.

I'd class him as a demagogue precisely for this reason. He speaks to the people but doesn't act to benefit them. A populist would do beneficial things for the whole, rather than a specific caste, regardless of their popularity. Trump spoke to the popular appetites and whims of the people but then acted to benefit the oligarchic caste only, essentially the opposite of populism.

That's reasonable. To me he seems like an interesting example because he keeps appealing to as many different groups as he can, but consequently his policy doesn't favour anyone at all and especially not his core supporters.