• link
    fedilink
    -23 months ago

    @Zombiepirate

    Fascists are hybrids. Fascism is corporatism, i.e. state control through corporations.

    What does my profile say?

    “Furthest Right: raging realism plus transcendental reverence. I write at https://www.amerika.org/ and https://www.deathmetal.org/ about topics such as nihilism, ecofascism, paganism, eugenics, capitalism, perennialism, conservatism, natural selection, and of course death metal.”

    Ecofascism is a separate movement. You read your Linkola and Kaczynski?

    Full readout here:
    https://annihilation.social/notice/AgRr091ay4W0HCTtcu

    Lincoln was a radical. He, too, was a hybrid, in that he came from the Anglo tradition but was outside of it as a “radical.”

    He was a progressive of his age. He was closer to Marx than Washington.

    • @Zombiepirate
      link
      23 months ago

      So you’re saying that fascists and conservatives work to similar ends?

      • link
        fedilink
        -13 months ago

        @Zombiepirate

        The most conservative society:

        * Absolute monarchy
        * Ethno-nationalist
        * Free market based
        * Caste system
        * Culture/religion united

        Like anything else, there are degrees of conservatism.

        Some conservatives, like GWB, are barely conservative.

      • link
        fedilink
        -23 months ago

        @Zombiepirate

        Fascists still believe in the State; conservatives are free market devotees but ambivalent if not hostile to the State.

        • @Zombiepirate
          link
          2
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Not all conservatives are free market devotees; that’s a modern twist that is not universal.

          But you agree that they work to the same ends?

          • link
            fedilink
            -13 months ago

            @Zombiepirate

            I disagree. Conservatives naturally favor organic methods like common law, free markets, culture, and hierarchy.

            As far as work to the same ends, I think you have it backwards. Fascism is a hybrid. It borrows some goals and methods from both Left and Right.

            • @Zombiepirate
              link
              23 months ago

              Conservatism also borrows from the leftist rhetoric and action though, so that’s not a solid distinction.

              They’re both counterrevolutionary in nature; I don’t see the distinction that you do. It appears that they are possibly different in degree instead of kind. This is the “ends” that I refer to: opposition to the liberal revolutions since the 18th century.

              • link
                fedilink
                -13 months ago

                @Zombiepirate

                Conservatism existed before Leftism. Any borrowing is the other way.

                Leftism is inherently revolutionary. You recall the origins of the term?

                • @Zombiepirate
                  link
                  2
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  Conservatism was a reaction to revolutionary politics, it did not proceed it. Even the name makes it clear that it is a response to action.

                  Leftism is inherently revolutionary, and conservatism was a response to that.

                  But back to my original question: why do you think @neuromancer denies that fascists and conservatives make natural allies?

                  • link
                    fedilink
                    -13 months ago

                    @Zombiepirate

                    On the contrary, conservatives were always here. We just had to take a name after Leftism so people did not think we supported the “new way.”

                    I don’t think conservatives and fascists make natural allies. Conservatives and conservatives make natural allies. You cannot trust the radical big state people.

              • link
                fedilink
                -13 months ago

                @Zombiepirate

                Also, wanting something other than the revolutionary order is not opposition.

                It’s a choice for an alternative.

                Ordinary people recognize that, but ideologues do not.