Most of what I will be saying in this article has been said or implied by others, and most likely commented upon by myself in the past as well. However, I think this subject warrants a more thorough exploration. Fascism is an imperfect description of the myriad dictatorships that arose and subsequently fell in the middle of the last century. Corneliu Zelea Codreanu describes his movement (the Legion of the Archangel Michael), as well as German National Socialism and Italian Fascism, as being “nationalist movements”, meaning that there existed commonalities between each movement, but no one movement could define or encapsulate them all. Alas, in condescension to vernacular norms, I will not use “nationalist movements” (although it is the superior term) but instead I will employ “fascism” as the term which includes these movements. My use of the term fascism is not a moral or ethical judgment or endorsement. Fascist movements existed and can thus be studied objectively without succumbing to moral grandstanding so as to espouse one’s own viewpoint. I see fascism as a political technology, as is democracy. Political technologies fulfill particular functions within a political order, and their ability to fulfill this function or purpose is what makes them of value. My opposition to democracy is not in its failure to live up to the principles proclaimed by its adherents and subjects; rather, I oppose democracy because I oppose the telos, the logical end where democracy leads as a spiritual or metaphysical force. I oppose the spirit or demon of democracy because I do not wish to be led where it is taking me. Aristotle claimed that the logical end point of a belief becomes distinct and alien from the founding premise from which it is derived. I disagree with the position, as I see the logical end or extreme of any position as being the true fulfillment of the premise. Now my Aristotle may be a bit rusty, so I ask your forgiveness if my rendering of his position is not completely accurate. That being said, I maintain the “extreme” is the telos of a premise. For example, the telos of Christianity is unity with the Holy Trinity. This end is achieved in the extreme through monasticism, which not all are called to, but all are called to strive for. The term/label of “extreme” like that of fascism is not a moral or ethical term. Thus, to conclude this introduction, my opposition to democracy is based upon my rejection of the telos of democracy, of its logically derived endpoint. Ideologies and belief systems fail because they contain within them the seeds of their own destruction. As these systems develop along their preordained logical path, they end up invalidating themselves, thus requiring the creation of a new belief system, even if this new system claims to be a continuation of the old.
Fascism is a political technology and not really an ideology unto itself. Fascism can be made into an ideology, the people who label themselves as Fascists or Neo-Nazis have done this, but I do not see ideology within these movements themselves. Yes, these movements are purposeful, they have a goal, but I do not believe that they are ideological. Fascism is a societal immune response made manifest in the political realm. The countries which adopted Fascism in the mid-twentieth century did so because their societies were threatened by the existential threats of Bolshevism and Liberalism. Bolshevism was the more militant of the two and thus required immediate response. Liberalism was far more dangerous, as Liberalism attacks the mind and soul (whereas communism only the body), but the immediacy of the Communist threat was more visible and recent in the minds of Europeans, having just seen the Russian Revolution. The Liberal revolutions of America and France, as well as America’s Civil War, exemplify the bodily danger of Liberalism, but these historical events were overshadowed by the immediate dangers of international communism. Thus arose fascism as the national immune response to the existential threat of communism. It should be noted that only countries which faced immediate danger embraced fascism. There were fascist movements in the English-speaking world, but these never gained power because there was never a real threat of them succumbing to Bolshevism. Fascism as a political technology served them no purpose, as the ideology of the people did not need defending at that time, and thus, as fascism really has no ideology unto itself, it had no appeal in the English-speaking world.
Fascism as a political ideology or immune response does not render it a good or bad thing. Just as an immune response can save an individual’s life, it may also be the cause of their death if it is over-energized, for example during a cytokine storm. An immune system is needed to preserve the life of the individual, thus a fascist (or nationalistic) underpinning within society must be preserved if that society is to survive. Fascism as a movement is one of national survival, but it is not one which can be sustained forever. It burns itself out. Fascism can last only a single generation, or when the nation is no longer in existential danger. We see this from the fascist states that survived the Second World War or were founded after, these being Franco’s Spain and the dictatorships of South America. Fascism is not able to perpetuate itself, which is a good thing because we do not wish to live in a state of current threat. To see an example of this, one should look at the narrative of the Warhammer 40,000 universe. The Imperium of Man exists as it does because should it not, humanity would be exterminated by demonic, alien, and heretical forces. This, contrary to what most people tell you, renders the Imperium the force of good in the 40,000 universe, at least from the standpoint of humanity.
We even see fascism in the Soviet Union during the Second World War. Again, fascism is a political technology designed to save a nation. Under Stalin, the Soviet Union embraced elements of Russian history and culture, instilling a nationalism in the Soviet (or at least ethnic Russian) population so that they would be united and willing to fight and die for the Soviet Union. St. Alexander Nevsky became a Soviet hero, not because he was a communist but because he defeated the Teutonic Order in battle, the Teutons being the ancestors of the Germans who the Soviets were at war with. Stalin made Orthodoxy legal again, opening seminaries and churches, however I do not wish to imply that these state-controlled institutions represented a genuine restoration of Orthodoxy in Russia. Some will claim that Stalin was genuinely a Russian nationalist. I do not believe this. I believe that Stalin was a pragmatist. Lenin’s revolution essentially failed to impose communism. Sexual and gender liberation nearly destroyed the early Soviet Union, and thus “bourgeois sexuality” was made illegal in the Union, even if orthodox Marxism would dictate their necessity in communism. Likewise, when facing a fascist state like National Socialist Germany, Stalin realized that a similar Soviet nationalism had to be created which could unite the Union under him to wage a successful war against the Germans. The majority of people are not ideological. Abstract concepts like “democracy”, “freedom”, “liberalism”, or “communism” do not sway the masses to fight, but nation, culture, religion, and a patriarchal autocrat, be they a Hitler, Churchill, Roosevelt, or Stalin, will. And no, I am not saying that the Soviet Union was good because it, during a time of great need, resorted to a variant of fascism. Some people do like to idolize this period of Soviet History, envisioning the creation rightest, nationalist, and even traditionalist Soviet Union. This is, unfortunately, erroneous. Once the threat of Germany had passed and Stalin had died, the Soviet Union did not face an immediate existential threat which demanded the continuation of fascism. The Soviet Union returned to its normative state, nationalism and religion were suppressed, and eventually the seeds of destruction which were to be found in Marxism-Leninism took bloom and destroyed the state.
Fascism can only really have two ends. Fascism will either see a return to tradition, or a return to the political order it had sought to replace. Although I am partial to Codreanu, his martyrdom precludes a study of what his movement would have become. Thus, I acknowledge Francisco Franco as the best fascist. In modern discourse, there is debate as to whether Franco’s government was fascist or not. Evidently it was, but modern westerners do not enjoy acknowledging this fact because it would mean that western liberal democracies permitted the existence of a rightest, traditionalist, fascist dictatorship of European soil for just over forty years. Leftists and communists, to their credit, have no issue acknowledging Franco for what he was. Franco was himself a traditionalist and tried to make Spain traditionalist. He restored the monarchy and sought to have Spain governed as a kingdom. Unfortunately, King Juan Carlos I was a liberal and a supporter of democracy, thus Spain would become liberal and democratic, and as we see today socialistic and communistic. Franco used his power to return Spain to a traditional way of being, but this was forsaken by the nation’s king. This is similar to how Codreanu was betrayed by his king Carol II. Thus, Spain’s fascism saw only a brief reprieve from modernity and its degradation.
The telos of fascism should be traditionalism, and it should be monarchy. Fascism is a revolt against modernity and its destructive forces. Traditionalism is the only worldview which can do this, but, unfortunately, traditionalism cannot be imposed. Tradition must be something that one is born and raised in. Tradition must be an external expression of an internal truth. Fascism can temporarily manifest the external trappings of tradition, but if the people are modern, then once the threat that caused fascism to arise is dealt with, fascism will fade and the people will revert to their normative state. Liberalism and democracy rot the soul and the mind, transforming the people so that they will be conformed to the system. Communism attacks the body but the soul is left intact, which is why religiosity and nationalism have steadily grown in former communist nations. The war against liberalism and democracy is thus a spiritual battle. We must kill the evil in ourselves before we can even hope to stand against the evil before us in the world. This is what Corneliu Zelea Codreanu espoused. The conquest of the self is the battle we are to wage and this, of course, is only achieved in communion with the Holy Trinity.
One of the central tenets of contemporary western ideology is anti-fascism. Every political antagonist is a Hitler or a Nazi, regardless of what a given individual’s beliefs may actually be. International anti-fascism is essentially an immunosuppressant drug used to make all peoples of the world more susceptible to western, or really American power and influence. For those who do not wish to live under the logical extremes of Americanism, this “anti-fascism” is an existential threat, as now it is evidently and immediately as dangerous today as Bolshevism was in the mid-twentieth century. But mid-twentieth century solutions will not be efficacious for twenty-first century problems. Just as the immune system destroys, it also creates and restores bodily function. As today’s battle is against an enemy which attacks our soul and mind, we must create relationships and communities which are spiritually enriching and mentally fulfilling. This is not a retreat into pacifism or isolation. The model which I feel best serves our current predicament is that of Codreanu’s movement, not necessarily as a political movement but as one which is social and religious. A material fascism, I doubt, will ever take root in America or the English-speaking world, because Americanism is the ideology of the west and English-speaking world. Therefore, there is no threat which really challenges the American ideology which would require a fascist to come about and protect it. If such an American fascist would arise, he would espouse civil rights, democracy, gay and trans rights, and secularism, as these are the beliefs which Americanism results in. Therefore, for us seeking authentic traditionalism, our struggle is first internal and then communal, but not national. I admire Franco but we see where his fascism leads: right back to liberalism and communism. For a true return, we must make ourselves worthy of the order we would like to see established.
My books are available here: https://www.amazon.com/s?i=stripbooks&rh=p_27%3AElwin+Ransom&s=relevancerank&text=Elwin+Ransom&ref=dp_byline_sr_book_1
If you are able to donate I would welcome your support on Patreon or via the crypto wallets below: https://www.patreon.com/godkingandnation