Ask a Reactionary

[Traitorfish]

Is that actually true, though? Fascists tend to regard their own civilisation as superior to others, or at least part of an exclusive club of superior nations, so in that sense they think of themselves as the "apex of humanity", but I've never got the impression that they're interested in humanity for humanity's sake.

 

[Flying Pig]

I think if you asked a fascist he'd have trouble making a distinction between 'the interests of my race' and 'the interests of humanity'. After all, part of the point is that only the 'special' people truly count as 'human' for moral purposes, or at least have some higher level of moral value.

 

[Tahuti]

Is that actually true, though? Fascists tend to regard their own civilisation as superior to others, or at least part of an exclusive club of superior nations, so in that sense they think of themselves as the "apex of humanity", but I've never got the impression that they're interested in humanity for humanity's sake.

Well, I never said they were. Indeed, they aren't. The main difference between Fascism and pure Anti-Universalism is that Fascist [insert something like 'ethno']centrism is not indifferent towards things that fall outside the category, but actually seeks to subjugate those.

 

[Traitorfish]

I think if you asked a fascist he'd have trouble making a distinction between 'the interests of my race' and 'the interests of humanity'. After all, part of the point is that only the 'special' people truly count as 'human' for moral purposes, or at least have some higher level of moral value.

Isn't that just a trick of language, though? He isn't using "humanity" in the sense we understand it, which is intrinsically universal, but because his language lacks a straightforward way of differentiating between "people" and "people-shaped beings".

Well, I never said they were. Indeed, they aren't. The main difference between Fascism and pure Anti-Universalism is that Fascist [insert something like 'ethno']centrism is not indifferent towards things that fall outside the category, but actually seeks to subjugate those.

What does that have to do with universalism, though? Surely it's merely a reflection of the fact that fascism was developed against a background of modern industrial society, rather than bronze age agrarianism, so the existence of other peoples did not allow itself to be disregarded?

Also, I'm not sure that all fascists did aspire to universal domination; that was a pretty peculiarly Nazi thing, I think. Most seemed content with a generously-bordered homeland- the Irish fascists were happy with one soggy little island- and as many colonies as they could grab.

 

[Flying Pig]

Isn't that just a trick of language, though? He isn't using "humanity" in the sense we understand it, which is intrinsically universal, but because his language lacks a straightforward way of differentiating between "people" and "people-shaped beings".

I don't know about that. I mean, one can easily understand statements like 'the good of the company requires that we sack John', even though John is part of the company, or (to use a more common fascist analogy) 'it's vital for the health of your body that we amputate your finger'. It's not a major step from there to a statement like 'we should pay more attention to the comfort of nurses than we should of drug dealers, because nurses are more worthy than drug dealers', which could well manifest itself in a statement like 'drug dealers (ie, other people) are living in too much comfort relative to nurses (ie, the chosen race), and we aren't doing our duty to society (of which both of them are in some way a part) unless we rectify that'. So I think the logic is sound, even if the premise (that some people are more worthy than others) is inherently problematic.

 

[Tahuti]

What does that have to do with universalism, though? Surely it's merely a reflection of the fact that fascism was developed against a background of modern industrial society, rather than bronze age agrarianism, so the existence of other peoples did not allow itself to be disregarded?

Also, I'm not sure that all fascists did aspire to universal domination; that was a pretty peculiarly Nazi thing, I think. Most seemed content with a generously-bordered homeland- the Irish fascists were happy with one soggy little island- and as many colonies as they could grab.

It is indeed quite possible that I have made an error of judgment by labelling Fascism universalist. The most destructive trends in Fascism definitely had some elements of such, though ultimately, it is a misrepresentation of the ideology as a whole methinks now.

 

[Traitorfish]

I don't know about that. I mean, one can easily understand statements like 'the good of the company requires that we sack John', even though John is part of the company, or (to use a more common fascist analogy) 'it's vital for the health of your body that we amputate your finger'. It's not a major step from there to a statement like 'we should pay more attention to the comfort of nurses than we should of drug dealers, because nurses are more worthy than drug dealers', which could well manifest itself in a statement like 'drug dealers (ie, other people) are living in too much comfort relative to nurses (ie, the chosen race), and we aren't doing our duty to society (of which both of them are in some way a part) unless we rectify that'. So I think the logic is sound, even if the premise (that some people are more worthy than others) is inherently problematic.

Fascists don't imagine that their is any society or social body beyond the nation, though. That's the whole point, that the nation is a self-contained corporate entity. They don't imagine any greater human community; that the members of other national communities are of the same species as the fascist is, for them, basically incidental. So if a fascist identities members of the nation as "real humans" and people outside the nation as something "less than human", that's not because he entertains anything we could describe as a humanism, it's because he's speaking a language shaped by thousands of years of humanist religion and philosophy, and so is poorly-equipped to describe an anti-humanist view. (There's a reason why structuralists and post-structuralists use of them the least comprehensible jargon in academia.)

 

[Borachio]

They kind of suffer from a lack of ambition, imo.

 

[Flying Pig]

Well, yes, but I'm not sure that it's necessarily so different to how the rest of the world treats (eg.) criminals - we acknowledge that they're humans, but also that the good of humanity necessitates doing things to them which are against their interests. I don't actually think there's any intellectual dishonesty there - once you've accepted that anyone who happens to not be Irish/German/Texan is morally equivalent to a criminal, it's logically reasonably consistent.

 

[timtofly]

Christianity and Islam transcended the ethnic groups they originated from, in such a way that if you were not part of it, you were the enemy or 'someone to be enlightened'. While both Christianity and Islam have their merits by virtue of their spiritual and philosophical origins, the two were arguably the first modern ideologies. Christianity for most part reformed, incorporating pagan elements of host countries as well as undergoing useful intellectual criticism from within the societies the took hold. In a way, Western societies managed to subdue Christianity. Islamic societies are however largely subdued by Islam, and it seems to be harder to turn the tables, though I doubt it's impossible.

I agree that both groups transcended their origins ethnic or not. I would also like to point out that monotheism was not a function nor did it originate in such a transcendence. If anything the current rendition of Christianity could be said to have gone back to a polytheistic view and has left behind monotheism. There does not seem to be any proof that at it's roots Christianity was a reforming of Judaism. As pointed out, the theory is that they built off of each other as they evolved and at times even were antagonistic of each other.

However, I suspect that totalitarian ideologies are a product of universalism, and universalism was popularised, if not invented by Christianity. I consider universalism in most cases to be negative trait, a collective failure to live in the minds of others, one that promotes homogenity and attempts to destroy dissent. The Romans tolerated Hellenism, Judaism and other ethnic religions because Roman views were highly anti-universalist.

I may be wrong but universalism only works if there is an unknown factor backing up the experience. People do not come together by forcing their dogmatic views on each other. They come together to see if there is an unknown, they can discover together that cements their relationship. Control started in Christianity when trust in the unknown was misused and in such misuse universalism transformed into totalitarianism. One can argue that your first two modern ideologies broke the back of paganism. It was not the origins of Christianity that did that though. It was the dogmatism that corrupted universalism and led to totalitarian control. We may never know if Christianity without dogmatism would have eventually replaced paganism. We do see a return to pagan roots and more people are embracing the unknown as dogmatism begins to fade into the background.

When judging mystical schools of thought, I distinguish between religion which is public and aimed at giving meaning to secular life and creating social cohesion through public rituals and esotericism, which is private and aimed towards spiritual enlightenment of the individual. Esotericism is a completely private matter. Religion however, should to some degree be controlled by the state, (i.e Caesaropapism) in that no religion may call followers to violate the state's laws.

The whole point about monotheism in both Judaism and Christianity has nothing to do with it's control factor though. Control comes through dogma. Monotheism is the view that God himself debunks the existence of other gods. Secular life is very much capable of flourishing without pagan gods and adding God to the mix does not change that. Secular life can only happen if people release themselves from any unknown excuse to lay the blame on. That is why dogma pushed Christianity into the secular spotlight, because it froze the unknown and translated it into a set of rules that a handful of those in the "know" could control the masses who trusted those sent via the authority of the unknown. You are correct in that Christianity just replaced the pagan practice and held sway over those who saw no difference between the pagan and the origins of Christianity. Humans no longer had to seek out the unknown on their own, or even acknowledge it as long as they did not feel too abused by those in authority. However this also allows for periods of reformation whether or not such reformation is planned or not.

Sorry for all this philosophical mumbo jumbo. It probably contains a couple of incorrect claims that if corrected may bring down important aspects of this line of thought, so I am continually revising my thought.

Is that not the burden of a reactionary?

 

[Plotinus]

Its dogmatism. Judaism was a much looser religion before the Talmud. What the Talmud did, exactly like Christianity was originally is forming a strict definition of what is Jewish and what not. I believe that is something distinctively Christian in origin.

I'm not sure of that. Christianity, like Judaism, was very varied during this period. In both religions, people developed - over quite a long period of time - the notion that "correctness" in both belief and practice was a Thing in the first place, and attempted to define what it was. So there are parallels between them, but I don't know of any reason to think that rabbinic Judaism was influenced by Christianity on this score. Rather, the major impetus behind its rise and the transformation of Judaism was the loss of the Temple, which had previously been the focal point of the whole religion.

This sort of thing happens all the time. A similar example might be Zhu Xi's systematisation and synthesis of Confucianism, in which he defined the canonical texts and set out what he thought were the central doctrines. That certainly didn't owe anything to Christianity, but it's a natural development of any system of thought that's been around for a long time and has developed all kinds of variants.

 

[Traitorfish]

Well, yes, but I'm not sure that it's necessarily so different to how the rest of the world treats (eg.) criminals - we acknowledge that they're humans, but also that the good of humanity necessitates doing things to them which are against their interests. I don't actually think there's any intellectual dishonesty there - once you've accepted that anyone who happens to not be Irish/German/Texan is morally equivalent to a criminal, it's logically reasonably consistent.

Right, but that isn't the logic that fascists actually employ. They regard the nation as the only authentic community; a universal human community does not exist, cannot exist, and thus "humanity" does not exist in anything but a biological sense. Species is for fascists strictly incidental.

 

[Borachio]

So... what's to stop some ambitious neo-fascist regarding the world as the natural national community? I know they don't. But why couldn't they?

National, to be pedantic, just refers to where you're born, doesn't it? And aren't we all born in the world?

 

[Plotinus]

So... what's to stop some ambitious neo-fascist regarding the world as the natural national community? I know they don't. But why couldn't they?

Presumably because fascism always defines the natural community over and against others. So no-one could really be a Terran nationalist until such time as there are any aliens around to be cast in the role of external threat.

 

[Borachio]

Hmm. That's plausible, I guess. But since national boundaries are essentially arbitrary and every nation contains minorities of some stripe or other (according to definition), I guess fascism is an irredeemably self-contradictory ideology; which is no big surprise to me. (Actually I'm not sure that sentence makes much sense, now I look at it in the cold light of day.)

The term "Terran nationalist" I like, though.

 

[Takhisis]

I'm not sure of that. Christianity, like Judaism, was very varied during this period. In both religions, people developed - over quite a long period of time - the notion that "correctness" in both belief and practice was a Thing in the first place, and attempted to define what it was. So there are parallels between them, but I don't know of any reason to think that rabbinic Judaism was influenced by Christianity on this score. Rather, the major impetus behind its rise and the transformation of Judaism was the loss of the Temple, which had previously been the focal point of the whole religion.

This sort of thing happens all the time. A similar example might be Zhu Xi's systematisation and synthesis of Confucianism, in which he defined the canonical texts and set out what he thought were the central doctrines. That certainly didn't owe anything to Christianity, but it's a natural development of any system of thought that's been around for a long time and has developed all kinds of variants.

Sounds as if the standardisation of religion went along the same general lines as the standardisation of languages.

The term "Terran nationalist" I like, though.

An enemy of the Swarm, I see.

 

[Tahuti]

An enemy of the Swarm, I see.

The Swarm is pretty Fascist I guess.

 

[Takhisis]

Given that they have a hivemind, you should have gone for jabs about Communism.

 

[timtofly]

It seems that communist would rather kill off all their fascist instead of "incorporating" them.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Also, I'm not sure that all fascists did aspire to universal domination; that was a pretty peculiarly Nazi thing, I think. Most seemed content with a generously-bordered homeland- the Irish fascists were happy with one soggy little island- and as many colonies as they could grab.

Depending on your meaning, the Irish Fascists wanted less then the entirety of one soggy Island, and were violent in their attempts to reign in the Soggy Republic's irredentism.