Thinking Seriously About Fascism

Tags

Amazon, America, anders, BBC, Blog, blog blog, Breivik, Civilisation, Crime, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, demolition man, demolition man analysis, demolition man plot, Eugenics, Facebook, fascism, fascist, letters, Multiculturalism, myspace, nordic state, politics, q, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Scandinavia, social media, stallone, tennis, Twitter, United States

The much bemoaned rise of the extreme right in Europe is actually very easy to explain. The mass-influx of Muslims, most of them unwilling to integrate into Western cultures, has provoked a completely natural reaction. People want control over their borders again. It’s as simple as that.

With that said, some people are – as the media claims – using the present crisis to promote darker or more radical visions for the future. I’m talking here specifically of fascists.

By using this word I do not refer to those mainstream conservative figures unjustly defamed as ‘fascists’ by the liberal press. I’m not talking about Bill O’Reilly or Nigel Farage. I mean real, honest, self-declared fascists; people who see virtue and worth in the fascist movements of the past.

We are compelled, even commanded, to oppose fascism outright. Fascism is evil, destructive, genocidal even. It seems a simple enough thing to argue against, right? In this article I want to argue that, contrary to popular assumption, it isn’t easy to condemn fascism in an honest or consistent way. It’s very difficult in fact. Put another way, I want to argue here that fascism is rising in Europe in part because some of its tenets are inherently appealing, not horrifying.

One of the better known of the European neo-fascists is Anders Behring Breivik, the narcissistic butcher of Utoeya and noted lover of moisturising cream. From his jail cell in Norway, the killer has recently expressed a desire to create a completely new nation; one he would grandly call ‘The Nordic State’.

This new country, Breivik says, will be distinguished from the Nordic States currently in existence in two important ways. Firstly, only 100% pure-blooded Nordic people will be allowed to live there. Secondly, the government of the new nation will be dedicated to the replenishment of the Nordic species, sponsoring a rise in controlled reproduction, as well as overseeing eugenic processes aimed at raising the standard of the Nordic race to new peaks of human excellence.

It is my duty, and yours too, to both dismiss and condemn this racist proposal out of hand. And I do so now, reader, conclusively. I do not want the Nordic State to come into existence. I find the concept bizarre, untenable, politically naive and contrary to the realities of the modern world.

Anders Behring Breivik

Many people would leave the matter there. But I don’t think that would be fully honest. While condemning the concept in theory, I cannot honestly say that The Nordic State would not be remarkable in practice.

I am not an egalitarian. I do not believe the populations of the world are exactly equal in character, intelligence, creativity and behaviour. I believe that palpable differences, rooted in biology, explain almost all of the mysteries pondered by conventional sociological analysis.

Through this politically incorrect lens, I must recognise that the Nordic State would surely become, in time, the envy of the world.

A 100% Nordic society would have one of the lowest crime rates on Earth. It would have one of the lowest infidelity and teenage pregnancy rates on Earth. It would be among the cleanest, safest and greenest countries in history. The average IQ of the Nordic State would be the highest in Europe, leaving other Nordic states languishing in inferiority. And if, as Anders Breivik proposes, eugenic breeding were authorised by the Nordic State’s government, then the state would over time become the source of the world’s most impressive technological and medical advances. It would also be militarily supreme, since the technological edge allowed by superior intelligence will make for the world’s most efficient and sophisticated army. And so on…

Saab Aero X – A Swedish-manufactured car

My point is – knowing all this, how can we sensibly and rationally object to Breivik’s fascism? Seeing as the programme he suggests would have such dazzling results, what counter-argument might we manufacture to dissuade rational people from endorsing it? This is a vital question; one we must try with everything we have to come up with an answer for.

One tried-and-tested objection we might make concerns the moral costs of bringing such a project to fruition. Despite the touted benefits of a Nordic State, the fact remains that every Nordic country (with the possible exception of Iceland) is solidly multiracial. A fifth of Swedes are of mixed-foreign or foreign descent. What would become of these people in Breivik’s utopia.

At his first trial in 2012, Breivik claimed to be a ‘cultural nationalist’. He denied being a racist or a fascist and sought to prove this by saying pleasant things about Israelis, Slavs and other non-Nordic populations. This is no longer the charade. At his most recent trial (deciding a lawsuit the killer brought against the Norwegian state), Breivik’s courtroom salute, formerly closed-fisted, was explicitly and undeniably Roman. Breivik now states that he self-identifies as a ‘National Socialist’, a ‘fascist’ and a Nordicist.

Benito Mussolini

From this we might reasonably infer that Breivik (and his supporters) would deal with non-Nordic people in Nordic countries in the same way the original National Socialists dealt with non-Germans; that is to say, starve then, expel them or kill them en masse. This is obviously unacceptable to any orthodox moral philosophy. None of the benefits brought by a Nordic State would be worth the murder of millions, with all the political and moral degeneration such an action would bring.

But what if a Nordic State could be achieved without violence? What if – as Breivik suggested in a more moderate mood – a section of scarcely populated Northern Scandinavia was sectioned off for Nordic People, and the rest of Scandinavia left as it is? What would our objection be to that?

I’m really not sure.

A fundamental question that must be answered is ‘Does a race have the right to be left to itself?’ And if not, why not? If the creation of a 100% Nordic society brings infinite benefits for those deemed appropriate enough to live in it, why is there any moral objection whatsoever?

Why is segregation a bad thing? Whose rights are infringed by it? The answer, perceived by the majority to be clean-cut, is actually very difficult to express. As a commenter on a Neo-Nazi website put it:

“Why are Whites (and only Whites) expected to share everything with other races? Why are Africans allowed to have Africa, but Whites are allowed to have nothing? There is no obligation for me to associate with people I don’t like. It’s my life and I’ll live it how I want. How is this racist?”

Though I dislike the general tone of this comment, I find it difficult to rebut his arguments conclusively. This blogger recognises the infeasibility of Muslim settlement in Europe. But then Muslims are not the only immigrants. What intrinsic right do Japanese people have to settle in Europe? What right do French people have to settle in Norway?

An ethnic Scandinavian

I have little doubt that ethnically ‘pure’ nations would be less prone to civil conflict than multiracial ones. For solidly scientific reasons, a person is considerably less likely to want to harm or victimise someone if he/she feels a kinship with them. We naturally sympathise with those in whose design we see elements of our own.

Ethnically pure nations would also have a more harmonious social structure than multiracial ones. Since the social classes would be bound together with biological and sentimental links, class warfare would be made considerably less appealing.

And even fascist government is difficult to condemn clearly. Contrary to popular belief, fascism is not necessarily synonymous with Hitlerism. In its purest and most original form, fascism was merely a radical form of corporatism; a simply, mutually beneficial union of government and industry.

So what can we do? Perhaps the best argument against fascism – and against political simplification of all kinds – is not a moral argument at all, but a practical one. Breivik’s fascist utopia might be a cleaner, greener and more productive society than those prevailing in Scandinavia today, but it wouldn’t be a pleasant society. It would be boring, colourless, drab and orderly beyond desirability.

There are already numerous parts of the developed world in which only one ethnic type reside. Most of Wales is Welsh, for example. Most of Ireland is Irish. Most of the Faroe Islands are Faroese. If these are perfect societies then they will stand scrutiny to that effect. But they don’t.

Have you ever seen the movie ‘Demolition Man’ starring Sylvester Stallone and Wesley Snipes? If you have, you will be aware of its strangely ingenious and philosophically stimulating plot. A cop of the present day is frozen cryogenically as a novel punishment for committing occupational manslaughter. When, after his term is served, he is released from the ‘cryo-penitentiary’ in 2032, he discovers that America has since achieved a perverse kind of techno-social perfection. In this future utopia, there is no littering, no crime, no swearing and no sexuality. It is a completely innocent society, where men and women of all ages are reduced emotionally to children. Everyone is happy, but only in a very shallow and naïve way. This new society, we  made to understand,  is nightmarish after a while. While it is safe and affluent beyond contemporary possibility, it is also fake, plastic and lacking in adrenaline. I have a feeling that Breivik’s Nordic State would eventually resemble this dystopia in many essential ways.

Imperfection is a natural and necessary part of human life and character. Without it we become machines – shiny and impressive, sure, but also soulless.

D, LDN

Being Right and Doing Wrong: Breivik’s Jail Correspondence.

Tags

America 911, Anders Behring Breivik, BBC, Breivik, Counter-Jihad, Counterjihad, Cultural Marxism, Defend the modern world, Marit Christensen, Multiculturalism, No to Turkey in the EU, Norway, Norwegian, Oslo, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, United States

Shortly before he embarked on a gun and bomb rampage through Oslo, Anders Behring Breivik emailed a 1500 page ‘manifesto’ to over a thousand ‘contacts’ he had amassed via the internet. The text – entitled – ‘2083: A European Declaration of Independence’ – must now rank among the most downloaded and least read of modern political tracts.

The day after the shootings occurred, I downloaded it myself and attempted to scroll-read it on my laptop. Many headache pills later, I gave up. The compendium is too long. Life is too short. In any case, I didn’t need to read much of it to understand his thesis: i.e – that Muslims are set to conquer, via natural demographic growth, many European cities, and ultimately have a shot at taking over the continent entirely. To all intents and purposes, this was already my understanding.

Breivik is now in jail (or whatever Norwegians call a ‘jail’), and is kept for the most part in a segregated cell. His only connection with the outside world is via written correspondence.

Although a murderer should ideally be ignored (having destroyed his own moral legitimacy), I must admit to reading many of Breivik’s letters via transcriptions on the internet. This may be nothing more than morbid curiosity on my part, but I also believe these letters provide valuable insights we can all learn from.

Here is a lengthy excerpt from a letter written by Breivik to a girl called ‘Daisy’.

‘I lost/sacrificed my old family and friends on 22/7 (Note: the day of the attacks), so now and in the future the people I correspond with are in fact the closest thing I have to a family. Don’t let this freak you out though, as you should know I’m corresponding with many brothers and sisters worldwide. I’m currently living in isolation and will probably live in isolation for many many years. This is unproblematic as obviously, this was my own choice. I’m used to living ascetically so it will not be difficult to continue living this way. In fact, in many ways its exactly like living as a monk confined to a monastery. You have sacrificed all worldly goods and many other freedoms but you have gained a focused and balanced mind which is not plagued by greed, desires and lust – and you are allowed to work. I think if I say this enough times I will believe it, haha, but in a way its true enough, but it will take time getting used to and it may be challenging. We once had a tradition of selfless sacrifice in Christian Europe, and I hope I will contribute to re-establish this tradition among nationalists and cultural conservatives. The muslims have this tradition of selfless sacrifice, and this is why they are so dangerous, this while too many Europeans are decadent and selfish, with a lack of the ideals required for revolutionary change. But as we know so well, the wonderful thing is that multiculturalism is a self-defeating ideology so we know the unknown, the future belongs to us, it’s just difficult to predict the exact time it will happen.’

Throughout this text, Breivik casts himself as a classical hero; one who has given up his freedom for an honourable cause. I don’t believe (from reading this and many other letters) that he is bluffing. He really does believe it. At his trial Breivik said that the Norwegian state should give him a ‘medal’. At the time I put this down as sarcasm, but  maybe it wasn’t.

Another notable aspect of the text is the intelligence of its author. Breivik isn’t a fool, and nor is he (as the BBC had him) a video-games freak who simply got lost in another world. He seems to be a very bright, introspective and clear-thinking man, who chose (for whatever reason) the wrong solution to real problems.

When Breivik says ‘Europeans are decadent and selfish, with a lack of the ideals required for revolutionary change.’ – he is correct of course. But there is surely a middle ground (morally and practically) that we can move into. Massacres achieve nothing, except propaganda for the other side.

When Muslim terrorists attack Europe, the Counter-Jihad movement stands to benefit. When Breivik-style plots are revealed or carried out, this works in favour of the Muslims. Someone of Breivik’s intelligence should really have worked this out.

More recent than the quoted letter, Breivik registered a request for the formation of new Norwegian political party to be called “The Norwegian fascist party and Nordic league’. According to a transcribed screenshot of the text itself, the party’s purpose was to achieve “democratic fascist power in Norway to win parliamentary support for the establishment of a Norwegian-Nordic indigenous state in south-Østfold, named, Norway Yggdra.”

It is possible that Breivik is being satirical here, but far from certain. Regardless, “Democratic fascism” is an absurd concept and if it isn’t intended as satire then Breivik has clearly never read ‘La dottrina del fascismo’.

Anders Behring Breivik is evidence (if any were required) that knowledge is no guarantee of wisdom, and that one can both be right and choose to do wrong. His letters reveal a far more intelligent and (perhaps one shouldn’t say it) likable man than the crazed psychopath of July 2011, but his has been a wasted commitment and a pinpoint lesson in how not to combat the problem he correctly identified.

D, LDN.