“The active, aggressive, over-reaching man is still a hundred paces nearer to justice than the man who reacts; he simply does not need to place a false and prejudiced interpretation on the object of his attention, like the man who reacts does, has to do.” Nietzsche, Genealogy (1887)
“Fascism” is an epithet that gets thrown around a lot. But what distinguishes fascism from conservatism, militarism, or machismo? The alt-right (today’s fascism) is a mirror image of the woke/SJW phenomenon. But while the SJW phenomenon has to do with resentment stemming inevitably from congenital or immutable misfortunes, the alt-right stems from missed decisions and waylaid opportunities—no one who is independently accomplished has any need for it except, perhaps, as a source of entertainment. In other words, while wokeness is a genuine envy and hatred of others, the alt-right is a sublimation of self-loathing.
First comes initiation, i.e., the red pill: the revelation of a hidden path, the maudlin solipsism of fallenness and unrequited nobility. The next step is manichaeism: a girt-round delusion of war against a preternatural enemy who is everywhere and nowhere, objectified onto some hapless persons, principally Jews. Then comes sadomasochism: the object of his passions now clearly defined, his mind’s vagina now fully Zionist-occupied, the fascist surreptitiously derives pleasure both from victimology, and from fantasies of omnipotence and revenge upon the adversary—a conduit for and projection of all manner of repressed dirtiness, who (when the imagined time comes) will merit no moral restraint.
Hamstrung by spineless, prosaic scruples such as individual guilt and innocence, the uninitiated—“normies,” liberals, the bourgeoisie, etc.—cannot understand this. Like a clinical pervert or closet-case, the fascist thus inhabits a parallel world of titillation that dare not speak its name, exchanging coded signals under bridges and in water closets. His bad faith is endemic. This is why you hear so much talk about “optics” on the alt-right, whenever the movement periodically catches its fingers in the pearly gates of mainstream revulsion. Like flamboyant homosexuals, they’re convinced that everyone is latently like them, and can surreptitiously be “turned.”
Jonathan Bowden (an obscure but interesting autodidact involved with the British National Party, whose writings and recorded lectures gained a cult following with the advent of the alt-right) once made the astute observation that the hero of American movies and comics is often a vaguely fascistic sort—tycoon, cowboy, war vet, vigilante—whose energy is misdirected toward democratic aims, e.g., defending the victimized and the disadvantaged, upholding the abstract “rule of law,” etc. But this begs the question whether fascism really is what Bowden thought it was. If strength is an end in itself, then who needs the strong? If “life is an instinct for growth, for survival, for the accumulation of forces,” then indeed, Private Ryan is not worth saving. This is why fascist “heroism” and discipline always devolves into rank criminality; it’s always Kant on the streets and Nietzsche in the sheets.
One of the worst proto-alt-right cliches is that communism was worse than Nazism. This just misses the point entirely. Such things are a matter of quality, not quantity. Communism produces one of two types of leader: (1) inquisitors—pure sadists, e.g., Mao; or (2) gangsters, pure criminals, e.g., Stalin. Fascism, on the other hand, produces only one type of leader: the callow, vindictive sperg. “My spirit will rise from the grave and the world will know that I was right.” Translation: “You’ll all be sorry when I’m dead!” You’ll never catch communists feeling sorry for themselves like this. Beneath all their sloganeering, they know exactly what they’re doing.
Communism’s chief antagonist was the bourgeoisie: not so much a class of people as a mode of being, an amorphous set of predilections. Capitalism is a behavior. For example, in Homage to Catalonia, Orwell remarked about arriving in revolutionary Barcelona to learn that tipping had been banned in the hotels. Communism isn’t preoccupied with the enemy’s identity. Its aims do not depend on him. It is domineering in that way; it takes the initiative. In contrast, fascism’s chief antagonist is of course the Jews, and women. In fascist taxonomy, a communistic peasantry, or an inferior race, is just a puppet of the Jews. But the fascist very viscerally senses that, left unchecked, a woman will have ideas of her own. This inconsistency exposes the whole basis of the fascist mind-state: the absolute most puerile sense of entitlement and petty revenge.
Richard Spencer gave an interview to Alex Jones recently. Asked to speak about his background, Spencer said that “I could’ve become a lawyer and made a lot of money,” but instead chose the hard road of thought-criminality. But Spencer is not a hermit, or a crust punk, or a starving artiste. He isn’t risking his freedom or even his safety. He’s a professional Twitterer and civil plaintiff. Clearly, he lives entirely off his parents, and lives well. The source of the anomie and banality he sees everywhere in modern democratic society is himself. Can you honestly think of anyone in the alt-right who isn’t like this?
Here is one of Spencer’s recent tweets:
The video Spencer tweeted is of Trump, bloviating at a rally about his China trade policies, and promising everybody better appliances. Of course, this is phenomenally low-brow. But is the washing machine itself really something to sneeze at? For someone who fetishizes knights, explorers, marble columns and cathedrals, Spencer doesn’t seem to have any comprehension of all the background accoutrements that enabled people to pursue those activities. This is the mentality of someone who doesn’t do his own laundry, if only in the proverbial sense that he doesn’t really do anything.
Fascism is always like this: a Lord of the Flies-style retinue of the fatherless, the pimple-pocked and the half-educated, led by some demagogue pretender or trust-funder. It makes idols out of allegories and can never decide between Odin and Christ, populism and elitism, teleology and deontology, cynicism and idealism, futurism and traditionalism. In the long-term it cannot innovate or restore, because at root it is always a randy tentacle of the goddess of destruction.