July 6, 2018
July 6, 2018
Catalonia's struggle for Independence is a far too belated venture, if anything. Having escaped the grips of fascism after Franco in the 1970's, they traded one obvious tyranny for a far more surreptitious one.
Contintental Philosophy of the Idealistic strain paired well with the wisdom of the east. However, they did themselves a great disservice by philosophizing something from the top down which was, fundamentally, experiential from the bottom up. Hegel can be boiled down to Giovanni Gentile, who concluded that individual rights didn't exist. Regardless of the truth claim, it was the politicization of the claim which caused harm. Politicization creates illusions in accordance with the degree that it tries to administer truth.
In his 1927 “The Political and Social Doctrine of Fascism,” Mussolini clearly states “this will be a century of authority, a century of the Left, a century of Fascism,” which came from Jane Soames’ 1933 authorized English translation. Source
It's not simply a pajorative to assign Fascism a place on the Left. It is, simply, historically honest.
A true synthesis of the Left and Right in politics would be something like fascism: Right Wing cultural sentiment implimented coercively through the violence of Left Wing mechanics.
That, or it would be Libertarianism: classically Right Wing economics with the Left Wing proggressive over-determination of mankind's unquestionably equal agency in the face of the free market (a secular stand-in for Free Will).
The real Center would not be a synthesis, but rather, something politically akin to the 'middle path' referred to in the far east. In spiritual terms, one could say this is a position which recognizes being as superior to effects or to becoming. It centers the attention of the subject so that it may always remain in balance. To balance, one needs something to balance between.
This could, perhaps, only be accomplished through an attitude of apoliteia, ironically. Life itself must become the issue, not ideologies or means of adequately predicting the economy.
For this to be an option, society would be designed in such a way that people would be encouraged to strive for the highest agency they could, thus managing their own lives, putting them in agreement with others who want the same.
The impulses which created the Left and the Right are far older than either. Both have their uses, but the modern world sees both as only able to exist at the expense of one another.
In a culture where everyone is encouraged to maximize agency over themselves, it is more likely that people will be able to freely associate, thus being able to develop whatever kind of organization and economy that suits them best.
Alt-Right: Neo-Right Hegelians who think they're Nietzscheans.
Socialism: Globalist welfare liberalism.
Communist: A bureaucratic global feudalist.
Transhumanism: Digital Buddhism.
Anarcho-Capitalism: National Stigmergic Socialism.
Antifascism: Fascism without central authority.
Social Justice: Paternal state-ism.
Neoreaction: Bureaucratic techno libertarian aristocratism.
I criticize democracy because it is being and has been globalized. No one method works for everyone for all time. Am I hopping onto an anti-globalist bandwagon? No, a lot of people have been saying this for years. Countries are finally coming around to it now that the stakes are so high.
It used to be my contention that hipsters don't actually exist, but that they used to. Well, some trace of them probably exist in dark corners of Brooklyn, LA and Chicago, but let's face it; everyone else who usually get called hipsters are just people with square, thick-framed glasses. They might be familiar with things you're not. Grow up and ask them about it. If they're condescending, tell them to piss off or just shrug and exit the unpleasant exchange. Don't create an epidemic out of them. They're harmless.
This insult has become as easy as it is meaningless. Anyone who leans toward an uncompromising authoritarianism certainly comes close, but right wingers have been easy targets. The more right wing you are, the more likely someone is going to shout 'fascist' at you to cut you off. Fascists certainly had strong authoritarian and racist objectives, but they were also socialists. If anything, they represent an unprecedented historical aberration which doesn't easily fit into either the left or the right. While a fascist approximation is certainly warranted in some cases, falling back on this insult is a sign that you don't actually have a coherent criticism.
This is similar to being called a hipster, in that the activity designating its identification is subservient to the identification itself (this is how base-level bigotry works). Don't show any disinclination to favor something in the favor of someone who does, or you will earn a bad name. It's best not to even respond to anyone who accuses you of this. It just reveals that they're willing to self-police their thoughts and emotions without a moment's hesitation. You don't even need to make a case for yourself. You simply have taste.
Used for society as a whole, this is campus culture and metanarrative run amok. To unmask the role of family in order to open the borders of experience is one thing, but to draw a picture of a master-and-slave narrative which includes, not a culture, but the entire population of all humans for all time is ... shall we say, incomplete.
Society has both patriarchal and matriarchal elements to it, and both are necessary to some degree for balance. It's true that we certainly don't need all of one or all of the other, but we should rather be focusing on corruption where we can locate it, rather than drawing up abstract conspiracies which fall back on concrete variables like biology only when convenient.