The following is an opinion piece I am writing as a neo-Traditionalist activist. Some might dismiss my views despite I identify as Alt-Right, but there is a problem with this. Revolutionary Witchcraft is the only modern political ideology and unlike other forms of Alt-Right factions, it has mass appeal. Why? Traditionalists and these new agers and wiccan types have a lot of important things in common. For example, belief in reincarnation is a Far Right position; belief in the magical makes you re-position your values on what is important, like defense against dragons and Muslim invaders is now important; freedom of expression is important and will be tolerated in the culture shift Trump is leading, and won’t happen with a socialist or Muslim apologist. These political positions don’t change over time, even if these types sometimes become Jesus freaks, as they remain conservative. Magick is tangible if you take time to cultivate it. This experience of The Divine radicalizes people. This is a demographic of people, mainly young people, that can be easily absorbed and be more proactive than tweeters and 4channers in accomplishing generic far right objectives.
Despite Fascism‘s and similar political systems existed for a relatively shortly on Earth, we have learned more about the dangers of totalitarianism not when these regimes existed, but when they have not. We learned the horrors of fascism not through what actual fascist regimes did, but what their supposed ideological opposition did! Does genocide mean nothing these days? Besides the obvious answer demonstrated by the response to genocides such as Obama’s waffling on the Armenian one, discussion about the various Holocausts during fascism’s heyday would distract from the subject of this piece. If you identify as a member of the political right, you probably already have an opinion on this subject, so no need to add to the holohoax circlejerk. If you are new to the political far right, this whole Holocaust issue might be a problem, but the genocides committed by Allied Powers have not been used to delegitimize them, even if these incidents happened during and after the war! Not the best of arguments, but I do not consider the propaganda surrounding an exaggerated event designed to distract attention from the crimes committed by the Soviets as grounds for excluding fascist styled government from being an acceptable way to organize society. Especially considering that the Italian Fascists had very little to do with persecution of the Other (especially Jews) which somewhat common in Nazi Germany (and not all examples of Other, including Jews, were persecuted). If you are going to complain about genocide as a grounds for losing legitimacy, then you’d be against the current world order—and probably every government ever. Plus that is an argument against statism—which is what I want to talk about.
Yes, it is the liberals whom have demonstrated how bad it can get when one’s government is wrong. It is important to keep in mind that our opposition is not some all-powerful enemy: they are incompetent; their minds specialized for being cogs in a flawed system designed by philosophical materialists; they want to undermine a system (The West) that tolerates their existence far more than what they want to replace it or could replace it (Islam or China); and the rank and file of their next generation are weaklings. Ultimately, they exist so we can learn from them. Without the power structure that exists in their favor, our enemies are nothing. Now imagine a world where these people were just as violent, strong, and pro-censorship as we of the political far right have traditionally been. Where would we be now? It is simple: we wouldn’t be having this luxury of dissenting, we would be dead. In addition to that, we of the political far right currently exist since WW2’s victors [mostly] participated in a framework that tolerates our right to dissent. We still exist because we are allowed to dissent! We should not lose sight of the power of freedom of speech. As a Hindi, I read a lot of religious texts and commentaries by Yogis and other learned men, and I am shocked that I see so much calls for censorship! What makes this most scary is that they are rather ambiguous with what kind of music and other culture they want banned. I find this attitude by the far right, of all shades and stripes, to be incredibly dangerous.
We would be irrational and hypocritical to complain about the dangers of political correctness and how it is a form of thought control, but then blindly imitate our ideological predecessors and install our own forms of political correctness. A system that limits or discourages thought produces slaves and there is no place in fascism for slaves. The purpose of a fascist education system is not to produce an obedient citizen, but a citizen who engages in the traditions of his community willingly and intelligently. And for those more in favor of a religious based caste system or something similar, I shouldn’t have to remind Hindis (and other pagans) it is important to know one’s shadow; to use it when appropriate, and ultimately embrace its positive aspects. Things which remain hidden and unexplored are always a problem waiting to become something more. Constrains on speech only create a climate where expression cannot be fully realized, which will be frequently problematic.
In authoritarian countries like Russia and especially China, press censorship is a huge problem for the authorities because censorship creates a slippery-slope effect. It becomes dangerous to report on bad things, so people will self-censor on potentially controversial issues. This fear to avoid the bad, and instead report on touchy-feeling things, or what is good news, or propaganda, hurts the state the most because they don’t actually know what is going on in their society. Journalists are an excellent way to expose corruption in business and government without needing a larger regulation industry (which can be bribed, as we know all too well) more easily than a multitude of independent third parties looking for something to fill a news cycle. And we cannot forget that many of Fascism’s founders were journalists themselves! There are two quotes by Mussolini that are highly relevant: “Certainly among all those things which may be called prodigious in our civilization journalism (perhaps too mechnical) holds first place. The newspaper is the mirror of the world. In the press one looks down on the great street of the world and sees everything which has to do with the human race—everything from high politics to simple events” and “Journalism is the daily parliament, the daily platform where men from universities, from the sciences, from the industries and from daily life thresh out problems with a competence seldom found on the benches of Parliament” (Making Fascists, Chapter 9, pg 159).
Related to the subject of freedom of speech comes the concept to the right of privacy, but what becomes representative speech in the age of the internet? How does freedom of speech go with privacy, or to provide a contemporary example, the right of employers to know information about a potential hiree that they have put out there through the internet? It is one thing for a public figure to be scrutinized and known about, but what about the private individual? While this is a legitimate demand, the idea that an entity less idealistic than the state can spy on you is most unnerving. So what is the case for the state being allowed to do this, but not private individuals? Those who work for the state are likely to have access to secrets, or their actions effect more than just customers, and people with such responsibilities should undergo more scrutiny due to their position. But wouldn’t this lead to a slippery slope of surveillance? I don’t think so. Besides the middle and upper ranks of the government and military, the only individuals who merit en-masse surveillance are individuals with access to biological and chemical facilities where exotic weapons could be made.
What about dealing with dissent against the state? Should we consider the existence of a secret police? People are always going to bitch about the government—regardless of the regime. There are probably people complaining in Heaven. To punish people under a secret set of laws, or just target them illegally, for mere bitching is unbecoming and will undermine the state until it collapses—most likely from anger stemming from this political repression. Are there instances where issues would arise that only something like a secret police can address? Certainly, but to make a separate police force simply for this is expensive and would cause a commotion about how the government is more concerned about its survival than representation. Not to mention that normal police are more than likely to be doing dirty work anyway. So when should use of secret police be justified? Such a force should consider their primary objective is to target individuals within the government and root out corruption. The only thing more dangerous than corrupt politicians to a society are foreign armies and terrorists with WMDs. Only on occasion would such a force have to deal with subversive, anti-state forces. I argue the best fail-safe to keep a secret police force from becoming villains would be that only individuals under a certain age can be secret police. My argument is that the youth are most likely to be idealistic, and still indoctrinated into state propaganda of honor/valor/action, both would make them committed to action, while demonstrating sagacity in the often questionable circumstances that such a force would often find themselves in.
As members of the far right, we all want radically different systems of government, which includes many different forms of representation. Typically, we are looking for something more action based and all encompassing. In general, we of the far right believe that the purpose of the state is to facilitate the interests of the people. Despite the many flaws of the democratic system much of the West has been deluded into thinking as the only worthwhile method, the lobbying system of America is quite organic and practical. To clarify, I am not talking about their legalized bribery system in which an endless limit of injustices are committed through. I am talking about how direct communication with politicians and the threat of demonstrations creates a response by the government. Fascist corporatism encompasses this political lobbying through a system of totalitarian participation in which no one’s public actions are separate from interacting with the state—the state is omnipresent—which allows constant participation and feedback into the system. In a system where there is no universal, direct suffrage, anger or support for the regime’s policies can only express itself through a truly free press, petitions, lobbying, and public demonstrations—including the violent ones! A state that is truly representative of the people would never restrict the people’s right to express themselves, including revolution. France is one of the most successful countries in the world and it has a constitution that allows revolution/fresh elections real easily, so this idea is not new and experiment, but reliable. A system that incorporates revolution into its regime, even if that revolution fails, will only improve the quality of life in that system by reacting to the needs of the people.
Maybe my specific ideas are not the best, but it is clear that the benefits of limited government, or fail-safes against rampant statism, are necessary issues that the contemporary fascist, or other members of the alternative right, must begin to address if we are to have a relevant ideology for the 21st century and beyond.