The following is a text from Eugene Deloncle, delivered as a textbook to the Political Theory class at the École Nationale des Ponts et Chausseés, Paris' most preeminent engineering university. Under the State Education Bill of 1933, all French university programs came under the oversight of the State Bureau of Education, which mandated a class on Political Theory (read: fascist doctrine) for all students. The following introductory passages are by Deloncle himself, written as a textbook for such a class.
Part 1: Introduction
Right now, students, you are embarking on a journey that will span the rest of your lives. This is the beginning of a new age for you, where you begin your labours for yourselves, your families, and, for what is specifically my concern, the State of France itself. For remember, the State is bigger than just you or I. The State encompasses all, for the improvement of the State is the improvement of all within it. When a single man, no matter how small or insignificant his accomplishment, improves the State, he improves the lot of all of France's residents infinitesimally. One drop, students, raises the ocean, and when all of France contributes, all of France prospers greatly.
Thus, we must say to ourselves, how do we maximise contribution? And this is the fundamental social and economic question - how does a state empirically maximise its strength? The maximisation of benefit is strength - failure to do so, weakness. The answer, of course, is fascism. What, then, is fascism? Fascism is the empirical maximisation of benefit, in order to create the strongest State possible. Then, failure to empirically maximise benefit, that is, failure to embrace fascism, is not just incorrectness - it is evil, because it denies the men of the state the benefit that is so easily within their grasp. Thus, when we claim that the Soviet Union is a state built on evil, we do not claim that it is just a state that ignores empirical fact - it denies the strength for its citizens, and thus commits an act of great evil for its citizens.
However, a true fascist is concerned with the growth of his state. One should not have loyalties to another state, nor should they have some loyalty to 'the world' as the Communists do. To work for the benefit of another state is inherently not working for the benefit of your own, except in rare cases where such a state is an ally and their strength is yours, but 'Helping Other States' should not be a continual objective of state policy. Thus, unlike the Communists or the democrats of Germany, we do not seek to bring other nations to Fascism as an explicit foreign policy goal, except where doing so strengthens ourselves. France does not invade nations to 'bring them Fascism' as the Soviets do. The containment of communism, perhaps, is a valid casus belli for a fascist state, because Communism is an insidious threat and every nation that falls to it brings it closer to our own borders, but the invasion of nations to bring them to Fascism is a waste of resources and a Fascist state should not truly do this. Then, you may ask, is not the non-exportation of Fascism an evil? Perhaps, but a man has a sole duty to his polity first and foremost - to export fascism without due benefit is taking resources and labour from his own State, and thus is an evil in and of itself. In fact, the waste of resources is in itself the greater evil, and thus, empirically, other nations must suffer for the maximum benefit of our own. Such is the way of the world, I am afraid.
So, with this in mind, what is fascism? As we have said before, fascism is the empirical maximisation of benefits to the State. At its core, fascism asks the question "How do we maximise utility with finite resources?" and then answers "By strict optimisation." How do we achieve strict optimisation, then? Well, first one must remember that man is a greedy creature. No society can operate on the goodwill of others. This, fundamentally, is the error of communism - in dictating that all men are equal, it demands that all labour for the good of each other with little recompense. Such a system, of course, only benefits the weak and the lazy. Fascism does not claim that all men are equal, as Communism does. Nor does it dictate such a fact in some constitution, and then take its dictates as gospel, as Liberalism does. Fascism knows that all men are not equal, for we have seen it empirically. Look at the lazy communist ruling classes of the Soviet Union, who profit of the labour of others, and tell me that they are equal. Compare the great civilisation of the Latin races, who built roam, to the tribalism of the Negro "man" - and I use such a phrase in the loosest term. If all men are equal, then why did France colonise the world? Would not the 'equal' negro or the Amerindian savage resist us? Nay, they did not, for they are unequal inherently. Why? Who knows, and some of the greatest minds in France are currently hard at work in the Academy of Racial Sciences to discern such reasons. Current theory indicates that the root cause is biological - however, this is no matter.
Part 2: The Fallacies of Liberalism and Communism and Fascism's Superiority To Both
As Charles Darwin did state, survival of the fittest is paramount. And if the individual is fit, then the state becomes fit through his labour. Thus, we must allow the fit to rise and labour for the benefit of the State, with the State directing and encouraging his efforts. Fascism dictates that the State must cultivate the individual towards optimisation. Where Liberalism argues that a man must be free to choose all aspects of his life, Fascist thinkers ask "Why?" What right does a man have for choice? From where do his rights derive? The answer, of course, is from nowhere - Liberalism dictates a man's rights, and then pretends that such rights are empirical fact. Fascism, however, is the empirical ideology. There is no mystical source of rights in the sky from which all freedoms flow - rights derive from the State itself, which deigns to grant them. Why, then, should a society have a right to inefficiency? Why should a man have the right to be incorrect? They should not! Fascism grants only the rights that are efficient and optimal. Democracy is about choice - fundamentally, the choice to choose error. Why should a society choose error over falsehood? Liberalism believes that a man can do so, because his right do so flows from a magical hole in the sky. But only a state can grant a right, and why should it grant a right that is actively harmful? It should not! Thus, democracy is not present in a Fascist state. Neither is this vague right to freedom of speech. John Stuart Mill, a pamphleteer greatly beloved by the Liberal, once wrote "Where, in the marketplace of ideas, has falsehood triumphed over truth?" Were Mill alive today, I would point him to Communism, to the fallacy of the Liberalism that drove the Third Republic, and so on and so forth. Falsehood triumphs over truth wherever men with ulterior motives allow it to, for man is not an inherently rational creature and makes decisions with his instincts and body. We cannot allow this to happen - falsehood cannot triumph over truth, and those who wish it to cannot be allowed to proselytise.
Liberalism is such an error. It states that Man is an inherently irrational creature. Millions of years of evolution have created a being that thinks less with his reasoning faculties and more with his biological impulses. This is, however, not an ideal state of affairs. The Liberals and Democrats believe that a population, by virtue of majority, can ascend from irrationality and become rational. But why should a million men be more rational than the individual? Indeed, they are not. Fascism transcends this by replacing the irrational population with a cabal of men who are capable of rational decisions - in the case of France, myself and my Cabinet. All these men have shown themselves to be rational by embracing fascism, and by abandoning the irrationality of the prior rule. A Fascist state must be ruled by the educated, the strong, the wealthy, and the powerful, because these men have shown themselves to be educated, strong, wealthy, and powerful - the Nietzeschian ubermensch, to borrow the German term. Thus, we avoid the fallacies of Communism, which attempt to rule by the whims of an uneducated boorish underclass, none of which have shown any signs of competence. The Communist cries that his power derives from the Will of the People - but no empirical benefit to rule by the Will of the People has been seen! Look no further than the wasteland that is the USSR.
Just as the Communist claims that his rule derives from the People, the Liberal claims that his rule derives from God, or, from the dictate of a Monarch who in turn derives their right to rule from God. But, students, let me posit to you this. If there is a God, let Him come down from the Heavens and tell us how to rule. Where did any deity explicitly state that King Edward of Britain has the right of rule? Which deity granted to the Kaiser his dominion over Germany? What evidence do the Americans point to in showing that a God has ordained democracy as the correct method of governance? Absolutely none. In short, Liberalism states that it derives its power just because. In some sense, this is no different to Fascism - whereas Liberalism states that it is justified because it is justified, Fascism states that it is justified because empirical theory says that it is justified. But, the difference between the two is also prominent - Fascism has the claim to the empirical fact that it is justified. As we have stated above, there is no empirical benefit to freedom of speech or voting, because there is no empirical benefit to factual error. Liberalism makes no attempt to justify their inclusion in the system of governance. Fascism justifies their non-inclusion by virtue of the fact that they are empirically and logically negative, and thus detract from the proper governance of the state.
If there is a God, he has made no sign of His will regarding the laws of Man. Thus, we should abandon trying to find what a Magical Sky Wizard would want, and instead focus on what the State needs. We do not derive our power from the Magical Sky Wizard - we derive it from our own basis in empirical fact. Neither do we derive it from the fact that one man had more prestigious ancestors than another - this fallacy is blatant. Despite the fact that Napoleon III was a great monarch, his son was useless and lost the Great War. This is but one example. The successes of the father do not the talents of the son make, and all men must to prove their own strength.
In the Fascist state, there are no kings, and there are no gods. There is only man. For that is what we seek - the toppling of the rule by virtue of a prestigious thousand year old ancestor by a weak and pathetic tyrant, and the end of the rule of the Graven Idols of Equality, Liberty, Holiness, and Piousness. Only the rule of rational efficiency, of logic, of empirical basis and calculated decisionmaking can triumph. This, then, is the rule of Man.
No Kings! No Gods! Only Man!
)
