Zoran Zoltanous, Matthew Ehret and related analyses

[Wayne Hall]

Anti-Imperialism Critiqued
by Zoltanous
Jan 6

Introduction

An unshakeable dedication to anti-imperialism and anti-colonialism is a common trait among diverse ideological groups, ranging from leftists to nationalists, as demonstrated in their propagandic and aesthetic expressions. These groups frequently resort to moralistic arguments such as national emancipation and other utopian visions, neglecting the practical merits of imperialism, especially its historical contribution to economic growth and potential benefits it could offer to the host nation (an aspect any true nationalist should consider). Furthermore, they fail to recognize that as a region's productive forces progress, class struggles are likely to escalate, with the emergence of the proletariat moving us nearer to the overthrow of the bourgeois production mode, a concept central to historical materialism.

Leftists and so-called "anti-imperialist nationalists" often disregard the wider implications of imperialism beyond economic aspects, particularly concerning geopolitics and foreign affairs. They conveniently turn a blind eye to the imperialistic actions taken by nations such as Maoist China and the Soviet Union, while harshly criticizing similar actions by their opponents. Whether it's Stalin's invasions of Poland and the Baltic states, masked as "military occupations" or "missions to safeguard ethnic minorities," his annexation of Bessarabia and northern Bukovina (Romania), his conflict with Finland, or Mao Zedong's invasion of the Indo-Chinese peninsula and various border disputes with the Soviet Union and India over vague "territorial claims," these actions are often not classified as imperialism due to definitions established by Vladimir Lenin and the Marxist-Leninist interpretation, which are in themselves deeply flawed and biased, a point I will further clarify.

In my critique of anti-imperialism, I will take a pro-imperialistic viewpoint, exploring various historical instances of imperialism, explaining their benefits, drawbacks, and theoretical roots, while ultimately aiming to justify their existence. However, it's important to stress that my position on imperialism isn't rigid. I believe it has its appropriate context, just like the principle and ideal of "self-determination."

Before moving forward, it's crucial to provide a lucid definition of imperialism, as this is a topic where Marxists, left-nationalists, Trotskyites, anarchists, and others may find it challenging to reach an agreement, due to their misinterpretation and basic misunderstanding of the concept.

For Marxists, their notions of imperialism come directly from Vladimir Lenin. For Lenin, imperialism represents as:

“A specific historical stage whereby the flow of capital cannot be relegated to a particular nation-state, and flows outwards from the host, imperializing nation to nation in a considerably less dominant position with the aims of resource extraction and creating a financial monopoly in the various imperialized nations.”

— Vladimir Lenin, Imperialism The Highest Stage of Capitalism

This definition and interpretation of imperialism is highly specific and serves no real purpose other than as a dogmatic political tool. It is founded on circular reasoning, as was its intention. According to the Marxist-Leninist definition of imperialism, any acts of aggression, military invasion, or subversion are not considered imperialism unless the bourgeoisie class engages in them, as only they are capable of exporting and manipulating capital. This definition is solely used to defend proletarian states from criticism, nothing more, nothing less. In this context, it is similar to how contemporary right-wingers and other reactionaries use anti-globalism as a tool of rhetoric, only to justify the same libertarian, characterless, free-trade capitalism economic nonsense.

The definition of imperialism that I will be advocating is any action performed by a particular group, whether it be religious, national, ethnic, racial, or even a class, to increase the power projection of that specific group. This can be achieved through conquest, political subversion, economic dependency, or anything similar.

Giovanni Gentile in his book Genesis and Structure of Society described the aims of war and imperialism as this:

“The enemy must be placed in a position in which he can no more offend; and he must recognize our will as his own. He must therefore survive to set the seal on our victory by his recognition. Thus, war does not derive from an inhuman desire for solitude. The other people, with whom we disagree, are our collaborators; they play their part in the formation of that spiritual organization or patrimony which is our world. The cause of war is only dissent, and its end therefore is nothing but the conquest of this dissent”.

— Giovanni Gentile, Genesis and Structure of Society

This is a comprehensive and nuanced understanding of imperialism, in contrast to Lenin's definition which aligns with the bourgeoisie exporting capital to accumulate more wealth for themselves. By adopting this definition, it becomes evident that communists cannot evade criticism for their own imperialistic actions. They often attempt to avoid accountability by citing Lenin's flawed definition as a justification.

Why Do I Support Imperialism?

Throughout human history, the concept of imperialism has been prevalent, especially during the era of industrialization and the growth of finance capital. However, it is fascinating to note that this behavior is not exclusive to humans. Even animals, such as chimpanzees, exhibit similar tendencies towards warfare and territorial expansion. An illustrative example of this can be found in the Gombe Chimpanzee War, which took place in the mid-late 1970s. This conflict among chimpanzees was driven by competition over natural resources, power dynamics, and territorial control. The renowned primatologist, Professor Jane Goodall, extensively researched and documented this phenomenon, publishing her findings in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology.

Jane Goodall talking about chimpanzees and conflict

Given that chimpanzees are commonly perceived as exhibiting war-like behavior and are considered our close relatives, the following question was directed to Nicholas E. Newton-Fisher, a primate behavioral ecologist at the University of Kent in the United Kingdom.

“It probably depends on the definition of war, there’s good evidence that chimpanzees conduct deliberate raids on neighboring communities, and that this can lead to annexation of territory. For instance, during a ten-year study of a chimp family in Uganda's Kibale National Park, the primates killed or injured 18 chimps from other groups and took over their land.”

— Nicholas E. Newton-Fisher, in an interview with National Geographic

In summary, it can be concluded that chimpanzees engage in territorial conflicts that involve killing. This realization sheds light on the fact that our supposed closest relatives are capable of participating in conflicts, displaying premeditated violence, committing acts of murder, and even exhibiting behaviors akin to genocide. Their cognitive abilities enable them to strategically plan and carry out these violent actions, which further allows them to form social groups similar to human tribes.

On chimpanzee warfare

Richard Wrangham, a Senior Author at Harvard University, has long argued that chimpanzee violence suggests a biological inclination towards war that has evolved over millions of years. Chimpanzees are considered to be among humanity's closest relatives based on modern scientific standards. The current research from reputable academic sources provides substantial evidence that chimpanzees, like humans, possess a natural propensity for violence.

Interestingly, the tactics employed by chimpanzees bear striking similarities to the warfare strategies historically observed among Native American tribes, hunter-gatherer societies, and other primitive tribal groups. Communal societies are capable of escalating conflicts, leading to all-out wars and even the annihilation of rival tribes. This principle of extermination echoes the behavior observed in chimpanzees. Other tactics, such as ambushes orchestrated by numerous members of one tribe against isolated members of rival tribes, are also commonly observed.

In Napoleon A. Chagnon's book Noble Savages: My Life Among Two Dangerous Tribes - The Yanomamö and The Anthropologists, Chagnon provides insights into the genealogy, violence, and cultural traits of the Yanomami people. Chagnon's extensive research, conducted through active participation in village life and rituals, involved collecting family histories and conflict accounts from 1964 to the late 1990s. Chagnon's work revolves around his application of the sociobiological theory of genealogy and violence proposed by biologist E. O. Wilson. Wilson suggests that evolutionary processes play a role in shaping social interactions and influencing behaviors such as altruism and aggression.

Chagnon's ethnographic data collection and analysis focused on identifying statistical patterns between kinship and violence, leading him to draw conclusions about warfare in these societies, including practices such as abduction of women, ambushes, pedophilia, and even genocide. This research opened up new avenues of investigation regarding the impact of violence on reproductive success, and Chagnon continued this work over decades. His book serves as a significant contribution to the ongoing debates surrounding the methodologies and theories used to understand human behavior in fields such as anthropology and evolutionary science, shedding light on our inherent instincts and predisposition towards warfare and violence.

Robert Walker, an Assistant Professor of Anthropology at the University of Missouri in The College of Arts and Science, also provides valuable insights into these discussions:

"The same reasons for revenge, honor, territory and jealousy over women. That fueled deadly conflicts in the Amazon. It continues to drive violence in today's world. Humans' evolutionary history of violent conflict among rival groups goes back to our primate ancestors. It takes a great deal of social training and institutional control to resist our instincts and solve disputes with words instead of weapons.”

— Robert Walker, Amazonian Tribal Warfare and Modern Violence

In his research, Robert Walker analyzed records of violent deaths in 44 tribal societies in the Amazon River basin of South America, drawing from 11 previous anthropological studies. He conducted a detailed examination of individual cases to identify the cultural factors that influenced the number of fatalities. Walker discovered that internal raids within tribes sharing similar languages and cultures were more frequent but less deadly compared to external raids on tribes with different or unknown language groups. He concluded that language and other cultural differences played a role in the intensity of violence, drawing parallels to events such as the attack on the U.S. embassy in Libya and the ongoing war in Afghanistan.

Amazonian warfare often involved the kidnapping of women, a behavior also observed among chimpanzees. Interestingly, a similar number of women were typically abducted in both internal and external raids. Treacherous tactics, such as luring rival groups into feasts and then attacking them while they were drunk or asleep, were also common. These attacks often resulted in high mortality rates, sometimes even leading to genocide. Some scholars speculate that prehistoric Neanderthals may have engaged in similar behaviors. Parallels can also be found in biblical accounts, such as the story of King Jehu's purges of pagan worshippers in Israel, where he deceived the Baal worshippers before slaughtering them and destroying their place of worship.

Walker continues:

"Revenge was necessary in historical intertribal warfare, just as in modern gang conflicts, because showing weakness would result in further attacks, that cycle of revenge could result in tribes eradicating each other."

— Robert Walker, Amazonian Tribal Warfare and Modern Violence

The theory of Generative Anthropology, developed by scholars like Eric Gans and Adam Katz, finds validation in the research on Amazonian warfare and aligns with the concept of mimetic desire proposed by René Girard in his book Violence and The Sacred. Girard argues that human desire is inherently social or cultural, often leading to conflict when individuals desire the same object. Within a group, this conflict can escalate into a crisis that is resolved through the scapegoat mechanism, wherein the group's destructive energies are redirected towards a selected victim. This concept forms the basis of Carl Schmitt's friend-enemy distinction. The research on Amazonian warfare provides evidence of humans' propensity for violence and expansion within their own groups, which can be explained by the concept of mimetic desire and the utilization of the scapegoat mechanism.

Schmitt says:

“The enemy is not merely any competitor or just any partner of a conflict in general. He is also not the private adversary whom one hates. An enemy exists only when, at least potentially, one fighting collectivity of people confronts a similar collectivity. The enemy is solely the public enemy, because everything that has a relationship to such a collectivity of men, particularly to a whole nation, becomes public by virtue of such a relationship.”

— Carl Schmitt, The Concept of The Political

Both Girard and scholars like Gans and Katz perceive the scapegoating mechanism as the foundation of human culture and language. An informative video that explores Generative Anthropology, the observations made on chimpanzees, and the concept of the state of nature is Anti-Individualism History of a Social Species by Neuroposter (formerly known as Trudiltom).

Giovanni Gentile touches on this.

“It is important to notice that from an external point of view the criterion of economic efficiency can be applied to the lower animals as well as man. The behavior of the lower animals is purposive and therefore ‘useful’; it is more immediately hedonistic. Their behavior is not free but mechanical, and in that sense necessary - which is what we mean by instinctive for ‘Instinct’ is rational behavior. The Analogy between the instinctive behavior of Brutes and the Utilitarian activity of man does not break down because intelligence is involved in the latter. Intelligence is not absent even in the actions of the lower animals.”

— Giovanni Gentile, Genesis and Structure of Society

The European imperialization of Africa indeed involved the systematic exploitation of the continent's vast resources, which had remained largely untapped for centuries. European powers extracted these resources to fuel their industrial centers and militaries, perpetuating the cycle of imperialism and further economic growth. As a result, Africa was left with modern technology and infrastructure in certain regions, particularly in the east, north, and south, which played a role in financing post-independence and subsequent economic advancements.

Ethiopia serves as an example of a country that maintained independence for a longer period and benefited significantly from trade with Europeans. European colonialism and imperialism played a significant role in keeping Ethiopia relatively modern compared to other African nations. The Europeans developed industries and technologies that the Ethiopians were able to utilize for their own benefit.

In South Africa, British investment in gold and diamond mines led to the construction of numerous mines, roads, railroads, and ports to facilitate the transportation of these valuable resources. Consequently, South Africa became one of the most modernized African nations on the continent, thanks to decades of British reign and investment.

In former French colonies, particularly in North Africa, such as Algeria and Morocco, the French made significant investments due to the strategic value of these regions. Even today, despite internal wealth disparities, Algeria remains the richest non-island African nation and a regional economic power, benefiting from its access to the Mediterranean Sea and the rest of Africa. The infrastructure built by the French allowed for the extraction of substantial amounts of oil and natural gas, forming the basis of their export-oriented economy.

French colonization in West Africa prioritized the extraction of resources at an increasingly productive rate. The colonies expanded their manufacturing of products like peanuts and cotton, with incentives and gifts used to encourage participation and competition within the colonial economy. In areas suitable for agriculture, the French encouraged migration to regions where wages could be earned and contribute to the overall colonial economy. It is worth noting that various historical figures, ranging from Adolf Hitler to Frederick Engels, have regarded the foundation of civilization as being rooted in slavery. This perspective is shared by many historians, including modern academics with diverse viewpoints, who acknowledge the role of slavery in the development of civilizations worldwide.

Detailing that slavery is the human condition

In his controversial work The Case for Colonialism, Bruce Gilley, a professor of political science at Portland State University, argued that colonialism had benefits for both the conqueror and the conquered nation. Similarly, in certain sections of Marxist-Leninism in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Karl Marx acknowledged that imperialism brought about positive social and socioeconomic changes that would not have occurred without the influence of imperial powers. This perspective can be observed in Marx's article on The British Rule In India.

It is important to consider the context in which Marx wrote this article. While he used moralistic rhetoric to emphasize the exploitative nature of English rule in India, it is worth noting that Marxists generally reject the concept of morality as they view it as a creation of the capitalist superstructure that supports and perpetuates capitalism. Marx also made critical remarks about traditional Indian culture, characterizing it as despotic and filled with barbaric mysticism, which he used to justify British rulership. Marx argued that British influence in India was leading to a revolution within Indian society, which, according to Marxist theory, implied economic development—a positive outcome that Marx saw as necessary within the framework of historical materialism. Additionally, references are made to the development that can emerge from slavery for the advancement of civilization.

Friedrich Engels shares similar rhetoric to Hitler in this regard:

“For now slavery had also been invented. To the barbarian of the lower stage, a slave was valueless. Hence the treatment of defeated enemies by the American Indians was quite different from that at a higher stage. The men were killed or adopted as brothers into the tribe of the victors; the women were taken as wives or otherwise adopted with their surviving children. At this stage human labor-power still does not produce any considerable surplus over and above its maintenance costs. That was no longer the case after the introduction of cattle-breeding, metalworking, weaving and, lastly, agriculture. just as the wives whom it had formerly been so easy to obtain had now acquired an exchange value and were bought, so also with the forces of labor, particularly since the herds had definitely become family possessions. The family did not multiply as rapidly as the cattle. More people were needed to look after them; for this purpose use could be made of the enemies captured in war, who could also be bred just as easily as the cattle themselves”

— Friedrich Engels, Origin of The Family, Private Property and The State

The concept of civilization and its relationship with slavery is not only found in religious texts like the Quran and the Hadith but also in various historical and philosophical works. It is a notion that can be traced across different human races and cultures. The rise of civilization often involves the introduction of slavery as a means to establish power and dominance over resources within a territory.

In Civilization: The Result of Compulsory Labor by George Fitzhugh, a pro-slavery advocate, we see a similar line of thought as expressed by figures like Engels and Hitler regarding the role of slavery in civilization. Eric Williams, in his book Capitalism and Slavery, argues that slavery played a pivotal role in Europe's ascent to global economic dominance. According to Williams, the conquest and settlement of the New World by Europeans relied on the enslavement of millions of individuals, whose labor generated the capital that fueled the industrial revolution. He contends that Europe's economic progress was built upon the foundations laid by enslaved individuals, and the abolition of slavery was driven by economic self-interest rather than moral convictions.

Furthermore, the Roman Empire serves as an example where the Pax Romana, a period of relative peace and stability, was sustained by Roman imperialism, order, and expansion. Slavery was integral to the Roman civilization, and the empire was built upon the labor of slaves. The concept of friend-enemy distinction in politics played a crucial role in shaping Roman identity and their expansion.

Violence and civilization are often intertwined, with each being a necessary component of the other. Civilization relies on a collective understanding of the consequences of violence to ensure mutual trust within a group. Violating this group consciousness is seen as defying civilization, and civilization must adapt and reform to survive. Moral violence is introduced to serve the greater good of the group, while proper violence is sanctioned by all as a means to rectify wrongs.

Slavery can be seen as a manifestation of structured violence, aimed at mitigating future instances of unstructured violence, impropriety, and wrongs. While some may argue against condoning a system that inherently contains immoral aspects, the complexity of civilization necessitates a recognition that there will always be some degree of immorality. Civilization and hierarchy are intertwined, and attempting to negate hierarchy entirely would be the worst form of wrong. To have civilization is to have structure, and with structure comes violence. Structured violence, when utilized productively, can, should, and will be employed to mitigate unstructured violence that poses a threat to society.

According to Richard Spencer, there is an argument to make that Africans have benefited from their experience with white supremacy. However, it is important to note that slavery is not a permanent aspect of civilization. Although it was abolished in many parts of the world, it continued to exist in limited forms, such as servitude in the French colonies in West Africa, to aid in the further development of the colony. While questionable tactics may have been employed in West Africa, they contributed to the overall development of the colony and the extraction of raw resources, which concentrated the growth of productive forces.

During World War II, Italy's imperialism aimed to acquire new resources needed for industrialization, as Italy was economically behind other European countries until the Marshall Plan. By expanding into Balkan territories rich in resources like iron, carbon, copper, timber, and cattle, Italy could utilize these resources for its own industrialization while also developing the lands from which the resources were extracted.

In Greece, Italy had plans to significantly develop its underdeveloped steel industry, which would not only contribute to Italy's industrialization but also benefit Greece through increased trade and investment from a larger power. Similarly, Italian ambitions in Africa would have led to increased investment and trade, as regions were developed to finance Italy's industrialization by extracting the continent's rich resources, ultimately benefiting the overall development of Africa. It is worth noting that Japanese imperialism, while controversial due to its destructive nature, would have still resulted in the expansion and development of the subjugated lands.

Although the Imperial Japanese army was comprised of fanatics with xenophobic and aggressive tendencies, it is unlikely that they would have maintained full control of the occupied territories, as pressure from a civilian government would have led to relinquishing control. While the army may have been radical, the civilian government was less so and would have allowed Japanese Zaibatsu (business conglomerates) to heavily invest in the untapped potential of China and East Asia to satisfy Japan's resource needs, such as oil, iron, and copper. These resources were crucial for running a proper industrial economy, which Japan either lacked or had limited access to domestically.

Having the army terrorize the population and control the foreign resources would not have been a smart move. As they would have essentially destroyed a labor pool of millions and hindered the immense untapped potential in China, Indochina, and Indonesia. Therefore, such an aggressive set up would not have been maintained. What this means is that East Asian economies would be forcefully linked to the Japanese market, with Japan benefiting extremely from the influx of all the resources and income it needs to run its empire, while the subjugated peoples would have lived under the civilian governments subservient to Tokyo, which would have pumped billions of Yen into their economy for infrastructure and economic expansion projects. Furthermore, if you don't believe in the hostile sentiments surrounding the Japanese military put out by the West, they still had the geopolitical ambition advocated by people like Hideki Tojo during WW2 to Inejiro Asanuma after WW2 to expel all the Western capitalist imperialist powers out of East Asia for the security of Asia and thus securing Japan from Western domination.

It should be noted that, in addition to the economic improvements resulting from the creation of infrastructure by colonizers, they also introduce social technologies (such as statecraft, economic systems, and cultural norms) that benefit the native populations of lands brought into the hegemony of the imperial state. These social technologies would likely never come to fruition under traditionally bound and underdeveloped native systems, as they originate from a different civilization and mode of thought.

Although it is common in history for conquering states to impose their culture on and mistreat the conquered peoples, this does not necessarily need to be the case. In fact, colonization can not only build up the economic forces of a nation, but it can also birth it. Take America, for example, which started as a colony. While some may argue that America is "stolen land", the reality is that all land is "stolen land".

Let us examine the history of the birth of Germany. Pope Alexander III sanctioned the northern crusades, which were unlike those to the east. The Old Prussians, a pagan Baltic people, became targets for the Crusades. Previously, Konrad I of Masovia (Poland) attempted to take this land, but failed to convert the Old Prussians.

Hermann von Salza was held in high esteem by the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II and the Pope. The Teutonic Knights were set to take heathen land and they took Prussia, forcing the Prussian people into a state of lesser citizenship and stripping them of their religion, language, and history. The Teutonic Knights were less successful with Lithuania, and it was not wise to make enemies with Poland. Things went south for the Teutonic Knights after the Thirteen Years' War and much of Prussia became held in a personal union with Poland, making much of Prussia part of Poland and under their Crown.

The Teutonic Knights were not stopped, but the State of the Teutonic Order underwent a secularization period during the Protestant Reformation, becoming the Duchy of Prussia. This led to the transition into Brandenburg-Prussia. Frederick William got the Holy Roman Empire to elevate his Duchy to a kingdom. Skipping over Frederick William I, who really created the heavily militaristic Prussian environment that is infamously known today, we get Frederick The Great who shows himself to be a great military genius and soon took Silesia after the War of the Austrian Succession. And more importantly, after the First Partition of Poland, with the help of Austria-Hungary and the Russian Empire, he could finally call himself "King of Prussia," as he now had all of it. The land that was Polish after the Thirteen Years' War was now back in the hands of Frederick The Great. Now, there was a competition between Prussia and Austria for influence over the rest of Germany. After Frederick The Great, the other two partitions of Poland occurred, giving Prussia all of Poland.

Much of this, like Poland, was lost after the Napoleonic Wars. After the Napoleonic Wars in the Congress of Vienna, it was agreed that Prussia would regain a lot of its previously conquered lands. Things were mostly peaceful for a time. However, a brilliant politician named Otto von Bismarck began to rise on the scene and became Minister President of Prussia in 1862. After the Seven Weeks' War, Prussia became the dominant power in Germany. Now, only one main thing was getting in the way of the unification of Germany. The Franco-Prussian War forced Austria to side with Prussia, soon ending the debate over German dualism, and the German Empire was proclaimed. Here we see a nation, like many others, being born out of imperialism and reaching high levels of greatness.

Oswald Mosley in his book Fascism: 100 Questions Asked and Answered, gave his solution to the Indian colony:

“Question Number 84: What reforms would you substitute for the India Bill [Government of India Act 1935]?

The retention of absolute power by the British Crown over all problems of Defence and Fiscal policy, to the extent necessary to finance defence and prevent the erection of trade barriers against Britain. The complete abolition of the Indian Tariff against British goods on the grounds that it is only just that some return should be made to Britain for all she has done for India. Factory legislation to abolish the vile industrial conditions in India which are a disgrace to British civilisation. A strong and advanced economic policy—irrigation, cooperative farming and marketing; the establishment of agricultural banks to break the grip of the money-lender on the Peasant. The establishment of a Corporate system in place of a western Democratic system built on occupational lines in the towns, and built up in the countryside, tier upon tier, to the central Authority from the traditional basis of the village Panchayat. Such a system is at once more in accord with Indian tradition and with modern western thought. In general, we should cease to argue with lawyers and enlist the services of genuine Indian patriots in the wide scope of a Corporate system designed to raise the condition of the Indian masses in a great new economic drive. Economic action is the surest antidote to political disorder. Thus, in the strength of Government, we go further than Conservative Diehards, but we couple with a strong government an economic policy far in advance of the concepts of any present Party."

— Oswald Mosley, Fascism: 100 Questions Asked and Answered

Mosley, despite not being an anti-colonialist or anti-segregationist, had a unique approach to maintaining the British colonial empire. He believed in retaining the empire to preserve political strength and mutual autonomy within the British hegemony, even after the dissolution of the British Union of Fascists. However, he did not advocate for the unjust abuse, oppression, and capitalist exploitation of indigenous populations. Instead, Mosley supported implementing a corporatist system in India, similar to what he advocated for in Britain, to improve workers' rights for Indians. He also believed in incorporating cultural institutions like the Panchayat into the corporatist system, as they were compatible with corporatism and respectful of Indian culture.

Throughout history, many empires have employed brutal and oppressive methods when dealing with subjugated populations. However, it is possible to approach imperialism in a manner that respects, protects, and even enhances the cultural traditions, social structures, and well-being of the subordinate societies. Therefore, the moral objections raised against imperialism based on oppression and cultural genocide are at least debatable. It is not inherently necessary for imperialist states to engage in the extermination of out-groups. It is difficult to make a strong moral argument against imperialism when the subservient nations are legally treated in a similar manner to the core population of the empire, with the exception of being a different group that may face some segregation.

An example of an earlier form of imperialism can be seen in the early Ottoman incursions into Greece and the eventual capture of Constantinople. Greece was considered the heartland of the entire empire, and the Ottoman government recognized this. They established their capital in a converted Greek city, and many of their major trading centers were bridged in areas with significant Greek populations, such as Salonika, Izmir, and Athens. Greeks were treated well under Ottoman rule, given high positions, and encouraged to migrate into Ottoman cities. The Ottoman government directed financing towards the development of these cities and provided generous compensation to Greek officials for their service. Additionally, the Ottomans subsidized Greek churches in Anatolia, allowing for religious freedom. The harsher treatment experienced in other areas of the Balkans was mainly due to constant revolts in those regions and the need to expand north towards Austria.

The Soviet Union also practiced its own version of imperialism and colonialism within Central-Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Their aim was to stabilize the USSR and centralize it into a national hegemony to further the proletarian revolution. In Central Asia, Russian colonists were sent to populate barren and vast lands as a counterbalance to the influence of native populations, preventing potential revolts. In the Baltics, deportations occurred after World War II to bring in Russians for the same purpose. Moreover, the USSR frequently invaded nations to exploit their resources and aid in the industrialization and development of productive forces within the USSR itself, as seen in Poland, Romania, and Finland.

The Soviet invasion of Finland, for example, was motivated by a need for copper, which was necessary for meeting ammunition quotas during the Third Five-Year Plan. The invasion of the Baltics was driven by a similar need for resources and a desire to have a proper port with year-round access to the Baltic Sea, as Leningrad was frozen for most of the year. The USSR consolidated territorial blocs into a single economic-political unit, exacerbating imperialist antagonisms. Stalin established COMECON as an economic force binding the newly created socialist states of Central-Eastern Europe. The Warsaw Pact was later formed to maintain control over these vast territories, not only for geopolitical opposition to the West but also for the economic factors that facilitated growth, making geopolitics possible.

The preceding discussion has touched upon the role of imperialism in facilitating the development of productive forces, particularly through industrialization. Moreover, it has been observed that imperialism contributes to the growth of the proletarian class within both the imperialist and subjugated nations. By fostering the construction of industrial centers and the introduction of modern machinery, imperialism expands the realm of capital and wage labor. This, in turn, leads to the proliferation of bureaucracy and sets the stage for revolutionary movements.

In the pursuit of further industrialization, proletarian nations, organized under the state apparatus, engage in imperialistic endeavors to acquire new territories and resources. This often involves confronting plutocratic nations, such as Britain, America, and France, in a class struggle. World War II serves as a notable example of this clash between proletarian and bourgeois nations, as aptly described by Mussolini.

Imperialism, within this context, serves as an illustration of its potential to advance industrialization and attain geopolitical goals vis-à-vis plutocratic nations. The cases of France and Britain, for instance, demonstrate how they solidified their hegemonies through imperialistic expansion across Africa and Asia. As previously explained, they benefited from the resources of these regions, further reinforcing the dichotomy between proletarian and plutocratic nations. Such force could be harnessed to bolster the geopolitical standing of a worker state.

If one argues that this worker state will eventually transition into socialism and communism, it becomes imperative to consider how such a transition can occur without the tumult of imperialism. Building socialism necessitates committing to imperialism to consolidate one's geopolitical position and harness the productive forces cultivated through imperialistic endeavors.

The Soviet Union provides a pertinent example in this regard, as it pursued acts of imperialism to industrialize and solidify its geopolitical standing. However, its failure can be attributed to the overwhelming geopolitical dominance and hegemony of the United States, which emerged as a formidable power following the decline of the British Empire after World War II. The Soviets simply found themselves outmatched. Consequently, the Soviet Union dissolved, giving way to the contemporary Russian Federation, which now occupies a significantly diminished territory due to regional separatism, exacerbated by neglect on the part of the central authorities.

The underlying argument, as highlighted through the example of the Soviet Union, is that socialism or communism can only emerge from a hegemonic power that attains geopolitical dominance through imperialism. Geopolitical foothold becomes a prerequisite for building socialism; hence, the imperative to engage in imperialism or be subjected to imperialistic forces.

These observations lend further credence to the ambitions espoused by Mussolini and Hitler. It also sheds light on the Chinese adoption of Carl Schmitt's ideas. According to Schmitt, politics represents the only antithesis capable of justifying combat, as the enemy poses a threat to our very existence and way of life. Thus, the political distinction between friend and enemy inevitably carries with it the potential for war.

Two passages from The Concept of The Political are worth quoting to understand Schmitt’s treatment of war:

“War follows from enmity. War is the existential negation of the enemy. It is the most extreme consequence of enmity. It does not have to be common, normal, something ideal, or desirable. But it must nevertheless remain a real possibility for as long as the concept of the enemy remains valid”

“The friend, enemy, and combat concepts receive their real meaning precisely because they refer to the real possibility of physical killing. War follows from enmity. War is the existential negation of the enemy. War as the most extreme political means discloses the possibility which underlies every political idea, namely, the distinction of friend and enemy.”

— Carl Schmitt, The Concept of The Political

These passages highlight the notion that war arises as a consequence of the political opposition between friend and enemy. For Schmitt, war was one part of politics.

“But as an ever-present possibility it is the leading presupposition which determines in a characteristic way human action and thinking and thereby creates a specifically political behaviour”

— Carl Schmitt, The Concept of The Political

Schmitt's assertion that war is an ever-present possibility holds significant weight in understanding his thought process as a meticulous thinker. He presents a modal argument, highlighting the potential for conflict that arises from the inherent nature of political distinctions. Through this recognition, Schmitt acknowledges war as a revealing moment with multifaceted implications. This includes its role in benefiting the nation, ultimately tied to the acquisition of power. Power, in this context, is closely intertwined with the collective group's ability to industrialize, modernize, and expand its influence.

Interestingly, even chimpanzees and so-called "barbaric" peoples grasp this concept, whereas liberals, Marxists, and many nationalist capitalists do not. One could argue that, for this reason, they may even be less intelligent than chimpanzees and barbarians. These individuals often find themselves trapped within the moralistic confines of propaganda, specifically the pacifist and indoctrination narratives. In politics, everything revolves around the friend-enemy distinction, the historical struggle for power and its centralization among nations striving for supremacy. Achieving supremacy necessitates expansion and economic growth, which ensures geopolitical security.

In this context, Alexander Dugin's vision of a Russian race (narod) bears some similarities to Nazi Germany's concept of Lebensraum. The epitome of this strategy within liberalism can be found in what we commonly refer to as pacifism. Pacifism aims to eradicate conflict, including the friend-enemy distinction, which is inherently contradictory. Without this distinction, social cohesion would crumble, as it serves as the foundation of civilization. Imperialism emerges as the natural manifestation of a nation's power and its historical struggle. Pacifism, on the other hand, serves as a mere tool for universalization. It merely masks liberalism's own imperialistic tendencies. Therefore, standing against imperialism, in my perspective, only allows liberal hegemony to persist.

Albert Weisbord gives a good brief summary of this:

“When middle classes turned to pacifism, the working classes turned to anti-militarism. Proletarian Anarchism, Syndicalism, and revolutionary Socialism turned violently against capitalist war. After all, these groups furnished the chief regiments of cannon fodder and feared warfare more than any other. Their anti-war activity was only part of the general struggle for emancipation of the working class.”

— Albert Weisbord, Offshoots of Liberalism: Pacifism

None of these groups managed to evade the allure of pacifist theories, remaining oblivious to the laws governing social dynamics. The anarchists sought solace in Tolstoyan pacifism while constructing visions of mutual aid cooperatives or resorting to liberal methods of individual objection. The syndicalists proposed the general strike as a means to halt war, as if the peaceful dilution of economic action through their general strike could eradicate the cataclysmic concentration of political violence that war entails. The parliamentary socialists embraced the notion that war could be averted through the ballot box and through theories of international cooperation and complete disarmament. Later on, the degenerated communists of the Stalinist variety resurrected the outdated pacifist utopia of universal disarmament as the "remedy" for war. Like liberalism, all these proletarian movements proved bankrupt in their inability to halt the relentless march of militarism and war.

In his critique of the West, Alexander Dugin highlights its propensity to assert the superiority of its culture and values over those of other civilizations, ultimately advocating for their imposition upon the entire world. This he labels as "universalization," a concept aptly identified by Carl Schmitt. A state, under the guise of championing human rights and humanity, proclaims that anyone who opposes such an endeavor is, in fact, opposing humanity itself and must be extinguished in the name of peace and civility. Ironically, this very notion becomes a justification for American imperialism itself.

A Lesson for Anti-Expansionists

The essence of domination manifests itself in various forms, employing any means necessary. Both Eurasian civilization, with its history of genocides, slavery, and cultural supremacy, and Atlanticist civilization share this characteristic. The conflicts between the British and the Chinese over opium, the Soviet Russification in the Baltics and Central-Eastern Europe, the American Manifest Destiny with its genocidal acts against Native Americans, the ethnic cleansing perpetrated by the Ustase in the Balkans, and even the historical Roman subjugation of the Jewish nation - all of these events reflect the same underlying hegemonic tendencies. National interests reign supreme, regardless of the consequences.

Conclusions

I have presented numerous examples of imperialism and how it can serve as a means to assert national power. In many cases, the subject nation benefits from the resources of the conqueror, the acquisition of new territories, or the territories themselves. Industrialization and infrastructure development, facilitated by imperialism, allow for the exploitation of untapped resources within a given territory.

Imperialism, colonialism, and warfare, while often criticized, actually play a crucial role in the pursuit of socialism and yield benefits for the nation-state as a whole. This is precisely why I identify myself as a nationalist. The term "Nationalist" in this context serves as a mere placeholder, representing a group or tribe that, through self-negation to a certain extent, can still unite to overcome the external collective that poses a stronger threat than their internal divisions, driven by structural imperatives.

As Humans our first drive is to secure our own material & biological needs.

Some humans have the drive to want more than what is needed to survive by instinct and desire.

Myth as in an understanding of us as an in-group by perception necessitates out-group negation.

The nation stands as a value unto itself, a self-justifying object of immense significance. Nationalism, rooted in the very core of existence, emerges as a force of profound goodness. This existence, forged in the crucible of collectivity, assumes the form of Dasein. To fully apprehend Heidegger's conception of human being, one must first grasp, conceptually, the essence of Being. Dasein, in its essence, is intrinsically intertwined with the world, possessing an archaic understanding that extends to both the world itself and the entities that inhabit it. Being thus courses through the veins of human beings, weaving its way into the tapestry of philosophical anthropology.

Consequently, human beings cannot be comprehended solely as rational animals in the ancient Greek sense or through the prism of Protestant theology. Rather, one must apprehend their essence from within, from their innermost potentiality. This entails that the authenticity of Dasein lies in the embodiment of values such as culture, language, and ethnicity within a collective. In this profound sense, the nation becomes the very embodiment of the collective will of individuals. The völkisch ideology of the National Socialists, with its resonance in the Geisteswissenschaft, finds kinship with the awakening of the Italian nation under Fascism, akin to the Roman exceptionalism. The self-realization of the nation-state emerges prominently through the resolute actions of a people driven to fulfill their destiny, to choose themselves and become the very essence of their own possibilities, thereby embodying the authenticity of the group.

In its essence, nationalism assumes its virtue through the negation of struggles and the triumph of victories. Imperialism, in this light, signifies an inherent drive for expansion, a manifestation of the will to power and collective consciousness. Imperialism emerges as a civilizational force, for civilization, at its core, stands as a noble endeavor, civilizing man itself. Thus, history is woven when violence is truly comprehended and willingly embraced, serving as a means to achieve a desired harmony.

In The Doctrine of Fascism this is explained quite eloquently:

“The Fascist State expresses the will to exercise power and to command. Here the Roman tradition is embodied in a conception of strength. Imperial power, as understood by the Fascist doctrine, is not only territorial, or military, or commercial; it is also spiritual and ethical. An imperial nation, that is to say a nation which directly or indirectly is a leader of others, can exist without the need of conquering a single square mile of territory. Fascism sees in the imperialistic spirit -- i.e. in the tendency of nations to expand - a manifestation of their vitality. In the opposite tendency, which would limit their interests to the home country, it sees a symptom of decadence. Peoples who rise or arise are imperialistic; renunciation is characteristic of dying peoples.”

— Benito Mussolini, The Doctrine of Fascism

[Wayne Hall]

Zoran Zoltanous Jan 6

Maoist China and Cultural Iconoclasm
by Zoltanous

Jan 6


Reflecting on the tragedies that unfolded under Mao Zedong's communist regime raises numerous unsettling questions. The roots of the Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap Forward, with their devastating outcomes, can be linked to Mao's radical ambitions. Yet, it's important to recognize that Mao's ideology was fertilized by a blend of influences from both Chinese heritage and Western intellectuals. One might wonder how the innovative thoughts of Western thinkers managed to imprint themselves on Mao's consciousness, and what motivated him, along with certain segments of the Chinese populace, to dismantle their own philosophical and social frameworks in favor of seemingly discordant Western concepts.

To explore these questions, an examination is required into several areas: the evolution of Chinese philosophical thought after the fall of the imperial system; the push by Western-educated Chinese intellectuals for a new cultural identity and a reimagined China; how the New Culture Movement impacted Mao's thinking; and how Mao's own philosophical contributions related to or diverged from China's traditional philosophical landscape. Mao's adaptation of Marxist-Leninist ideology, combined with selected Western principles, culminated in a doctrine that resonated with the Chinese people. This resonance was achieved through the distortion and exploitation of historical texts, intellectual figures, and cultural channels that had nurtured China's deep-seated cultural and philosophical traditions for centuries.

During their imperial era, the Chinese considered themselves a cultured and sophisticated people, priding themselves on their rich philosophical heritage and well-ordered governance. They held intellectual pursuits in high regard, striving for a life of harmony and contentment, and viewed wealth merely as a means to an end—a facilitator of happiness, rather than an end in itself. The traditional Chinese ethos prioritized mental and spiritual well-being over material accumulation, which was seen as potentially disruptive to personal harmony.

Yet, the material success of Western "barbarians" began to make inroads into China, challenging these traditional values and establishing Western influence within the country. As Western philosophies, scientific discoveries, political thought, and social theories made their way into China, they planted the seeds of cultural transformation. Captivated by these new ideas, Chinese intellectuals sought to incorporate them into their vision for a modernized China. The "New Culture Movement" of the 1910s and 1920s represented a push to revitalize China, shedding its perceived backwardness and positioning it as an equal to the technologically and democratically advanced West. The movement initially called for a radical break from the past, favoring a wholesale adoption of Western democratic and scientific principles.

The conclusion of World War I and the subsequent peace treaties, which sidelined Chinese contributions and interests in favor of Western powers and Japan, sparked the May 4th Movement. Over 3,000 Beijing students protested the Versailles Treaty's decision to award German-held territories in China to Japan. This sense of betrayal by the Western democracies redirected Chinese intellectual fervor away from the Western liberal ideals they once admired. Nevertheless, they remained drawn to certain Western ideologies, notably Marxism and communism, which promised a new framework for understanding and organizing society.

According to Theodore de Bary, Wing-Tsit Chan, and Burton Watson in Sources of Chinese Tradition:

“After the Student Movement of May 4, 1919, two currents of thought, ultra-individualistic liberalism and class-struggle communism, found their way into Chinese academic circles, and later became widespread in the country. On the whole, Chinese academic circles desired to effect a change in our culture, forgetting that it had certain elements which are immutable. With respect to Western theories they imitated only their superficial aspects and never sought to understand their true significance in order to improve China’s national life. The result was that a large number of our scholars and students adopted the superficialities and nonessentials of Western culture and lost their respect for and confidence in our own culture.”

— Theodore de Bary, Sources of Chinese Tradition

Communism presented itself to Chinese intellectuals as a solution to overcome what they saw as China's outdated state and subordination, especially when contrasted with the encroaching influence of Western nations that were depleting China's storied grandeur. These intellectuals, who had gradually become estranged from China’s traditional values, now found themselves also disenchanted with the ideologies of Western democracies they once held in high regard. The very Western nations once admired were now condemned as deceitful, their democratic ideals unmasked as veneers for imperialistic ambitions. In response, these intellectuals, along with their disillusioned students, gravitated toward Marxism, seeing it as an avenue to discard both the ancestral legacy of China and the oppressive Western influence of their time.

The adoption of Marxism by the Chinese intelligentsia may be interpreted as a shocking act of cultural and spiritual self-mutilation; indeed these very intellectuals had now ignited a spark which would eventually evolve into a towering conflagration that would bring down the very traditions upon which China had stood for millennia and drastically alter the future course of Chinese history. These intellectuals were no longer authentic representatives of the Chinese spirit, on the contrary, they were cosmopolitans through and through (many of whom were educated at Western universities), tearing themselves from their Chinese roots. Their radical aims were inspired by the unfolding of international events, such as that of the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. The Chinese intellectuals’ enthusiasm for the Bolshevik victory is illustrated in a piece by Li Ta-Chao, a professor and librarian at Peking University, whose radical thought greatly molded the mind of one of his students and assistants at the library, Mao Tse-tung. When speaking of the Bolshevik movement, Li Ta-Chao proudly exclaims that:

“All those dregs of history which can impede the progress of [Bolshevism]—such as emperors, nobles, warlords, bureaucrats, militarism, capitalism—will certainly be destroyed as though struck by a thunderbolt…The bell is rung for humanitarianism! The dawn of freedom has arrived!”

— Li Ta-Chao, speech at the founding of the Chinese Communist Party on July 1921

Chinese intellectuals aimed to emulate the progress and intimidation that the Bolsheviks brought to bear in Russia, hoping to challenge the Western imperialist status quo. Despite their fervor, they overlooked the potentially perilous implications hidden within their own revolutionary zeal. They adopted communism, an ideology foreign to their heritage, believing it would rescue China from derogatory perceptions of incompetence and disorder. Communism, rooted in the idea that economic forces primarily drive social and political shifts, is a culmination of Western philosophical evolution. Notably, it aligns more with Western thought than with the displaced traditional Chinese philosophy due to its focus on economic determinism, its organizational control over large populations, and its materialistic emphasis.

Communism emerged as China's solution to the quandary of its era and a way to reclaim national dignity after enduring the shame of imperial domination. Under communist rule, China aspired to highlight the splendors of its history, positioning ancient Chinese intellectuals as precursors to communist ideology. Ironically, even though communism was a Western creation, its adoption in China was not an olive branch to the West but a tool for global confrontation, positioning China as a formidable power.

This adaptation of Marxism and communism by "New China" mirrors, with necessary changes, the 19th-century imperial strategy of adopting foreign techniques to gain the upper hand over foreigners. To fully grasp the profound transformation that shook the very foundations of Chinese society, one must consider its roots in classic Chinese philosophy and how it relates to modern ideologies. The communist critique of traditional Chinese thought was comprehensive, with early attacks on Confucianism led by figures like Ch’en Tu-Hsiu of the progressive magazine New Youth. Ch'en labeled Confucianism as regressive and stifling to progress and innovation, views that resonated with young students who lacked a deep connection to Confucian traditions. This sentiment fueled protests where students vociferously denounced Confucianism, calling for the dismantling of the ancient philosopher's legacy.

In 1935, Sa Meng-Wu, Ho Ping-Sung, and eight other intellectuals published a Declaration For Cultural Construction on a Chinese Basis, outlining a vision for a new Chinese cultural identity. They emphasized the need to critically evaluate their cultural legacy, keeping what was valuable and discarding any detrimental aspects, while also selectively integrating Western cultural elements. However, this approach was deemed too conservative by Hu Shih of the "New Culture Movement," who believed that the foundation of Chinese culture lay with the people, and that there was no harm in completely overhauling the old culture. He insisted that despite any radical changes, the essence of Chinese identity would remain intact, ensuring that any new cultural developments would still be inherently Chinese. This debate between preserving select cultural aspects and complete cultural reinvention foreshadowed the extreme transformations of the Cultural Revolution.

The Communist movement in China was largely driven by intellectuals rather than by workers or peasants. Marx and Engels' Communist ideology, with its Western origins, provided a lens which prioritized economic and material analysis, potentially obscuring the spiritual and philosophical dimensions of life. After 1949, Chinese philosophy began to align closely with the thought of Mao Zedong, influenced by radical reformers like Chen Duxiu, Li Dazhao, and Hu Shi. Mao's key philosophical contributions, such as On Practice and On New Democracy, framed the role of philosophy in the new China and foreshadowed the fate of traditional Chinese philosophy. Mao's philosophy, emphasizing the unity of knowledge and action, was not entirely foreign to traditional Chinese thought, reflecting a continuity with ancient philosophical principles amidst revolutionary change.

In On Practice, Mao illustrates his guiding principle by appealing to an epistemological framework:

“Discover the truth through practice, and again through practice verify and develop the truth. Start from perceptual knowledge and actively develop it into rational knowledge; then start from rational knowledge and actively guide revolutionary practice to change both the subjective and the objective world. Practice, knowledge, again practice, and again knowledge. This form repeats itself in endless cycles, and with each cycle the content of practice and knowledge rises to a higher level. Such is the whole of the dialectical-materialist theory of knowledge, and such is the dialectical-materialist theory of the unity of knowing and doing.”

— Mao Zedong, On Practice

When examining the substance and footnotes of On Practice, one soon discovers that Mao spills little ink on the significance of “knowing and doing” in the works of traditional Chinese thinkers like Confucius. On the contrary, traditional Chinese thought is entirely overlooked in the treatise and is instead made up for by Mao’s frequent appeals to non-Chinese intellectuals such as Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin.

There are, however, several instances in the text wherein Mao haphazardly includes several “old Chinese sayings” and a couple of allusions to historical examples of what he understands to be the Chinese people’s “perceptual knowledge” of imperialism transforming into “rational knowledge” of imperialism—an epistemological model which he considers to be evidence that legitimizes his dialectical-materialist theory of knowledge and reality. For the first stage, Mao cites the “anti-foreign struggles” of the Taiping Rebellion and the Boxer Uprising; for the second stage, Mao claims that the May 4th Movement of 1919 was the period wherein the Chinese masses discovered the “internal and external contradictions of imperialism and saw the essential truth that imperialism had allied itself with China's comprador and feudal classes to oppress and exploit the great masses of the Chinese people.” In the former stage, Mao’s superficial analysis of these historical events fails to account for innumerable complexities and nuances in the social, spiritual, and cultural milieu at the time of their unfolding. In the latter stage, Mao’s analysis may be more consistent with what manifested in actuality; however, this by no means absolves Mao of his post hoc ergo proper hoc conclusions. In short, Mao contorts and truncates these seismic events in Chinese history into a grand narrative that conforms to his dialectical-materialist view of reality; he then appeals to the events (after being conditioned by a dialectical-materialist framework) as being vindications of his brand of dialectical-materialism, thus begging the question.

One of the most fascinating elements of Mao’s thought was his “extraordinary emphasis on the role of human consciousness in the making of history.” Furthermore, although Mao’s brand of dialectical-materialism “paid ideological deference to the presumably “objective laws” of historical development set forth in orthodox Marxist texts, [Mao] clearly believed that the course of history ultimately was determined by what people thought...” Related to the central role of consciousness in historical development are traces of idealism that manifest themselves in several of Mao’s speeches; namely his assertions that mental force or consciousness alone has the capacity to alter or change the development and outcome of physical affairs. This dynamism of mind to matter and matter to mind seems to depart from any kind of coherent materialist or idealist monism. In fact, a kind of dualism emerges. Mao’s thought reflects elements found in that of Lenin, who in turn furthered the brand of materialism advocated within Marx’ own oeuvre—which happened to be a materialist inversion of the absolute idealism of Hegel. The arduous struggles endured on the “Long March” provided Mao with evidence for his theory of “consciousness” and its power to navigate and transform a world of physical objects. Mao explicitly addresses this in his May 1963 speech, Where do Correct Ideas Come From?, wherein he makes the following remarks:

“Furthermore, the one and only purpose of the proletariat in knowing the world is to change it. Often, correct knowledge can be arrived at only after many repetitions of the process leading from matter to consciousness and then back to matter… [M]atter can be transformed into consciousness and consciousness into matter… such leaps are phenomena of everyday life.”

— Mao Zedong, On Practice

In On Practice, Mao seemingly contradicted his prior belief that consciousness and all its derivatives—thoughts, ideas, impressions, theories—are constrained by material reality. Mao had previously aligned with the vulgar materialist view that matter shapes and limits consciousness. This view echoes Lenin's assertion that the core of materialism lies in acknowledging the existence of an external world, independent of our perception.

Yet, we are left puzzling over how Mao’s staunch support for dialectical materialism and its epistemological principles aligns with his later notions that hint at idealism, especially the idea that consciousness has transformative power, as seen after the experiences of "The Long March." Mao shifted the focus of philosophical exploration from abstract theorizing and subjectivism to the resolution of tangible issues, arguing that practice is the sole valid means to gain and apply knowledge. He dismissed metaphysical contemplation as counterproductive and insisted on the synthesis of knowledge and action, underlining the importance of integrating philosophy with practical endeavors. This was part of an effort to reshape existing philosophy to fit the Marxist mold. The transformation of Chinese philosophy under Maoist rule was a topic addressed by Wing-tsit Chan, a former professor of Chinese philosophy at Dartmouth College, in 1961.

“What is the future of Chinese philosophy? In fact, research on Chinese philosophy is going on. Studies and commentaries on Chinese philosophical classics are being published. It can be said, however, that its fate is the same as that of philosophy in general, namely, that it must be reconstructed according to the Marxist pattern.”

— Wing-tsit Chan, A Source Book In Chinese Philosophy

Wing-Tsit Chan's writing reveals a certain degree of empathy for the revolutionary changes, portraying the shift in Chinese philosophy in a somewhat favorable light. He perceives this transformation as a self-aware evolution, moving from lofty idealism and abstract concepts toward a focus on concrete, practical concerns that serve the interests of the Chinese populace. Despite some hesitance, Wing-Tsit even categorizes Confucius, Chu Hsi, Wang Yang-ming, and others as "feudalists," though he acknowledges their dedication to solving pragmatic societal issues. On a wider cultural and philosophical spectrum, the Chinese philosopher Hsiao Sha-Fu stressed the importance of creating a fusion or a Chinese adaptation of Western Marxist ideology, tailoring it to form a coherent philosophical framework that aligns with Chinese thought.

Wing-Tsit writes:

“The profound studies and classical criticism of European philosophy by Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin are forever models in our study. Especially are the philosophical writings of comrade Mao Tse-t'ung and his comrades-in-arms most glorious examples showing us how to continue our philosophical heritage and to unify Marxian philosophy and the Chinese people’s good traditions of thought.”

— Wing-tsit Chan, A Source Book In Chinese Philosophy

In On New Democracy, one of his subsequent publications, Mao outlines a blueprint for reshaping culture and philosophy in the "New China." He poses a rhetorical question, "What type of national culture do we aspire to create?" Mao responds to this inquiry from a Marxist perspective, offering his vision of what this culture should encompass:

“A reflection of the politics and economics of a given society, and the former in turn has a tremendous influence and effect upon the latter; economics is the base and politics the concentrated expression of economics…It follows that the form of culture is first determined by the political and economic form, and only then does it operate on and influence the given political and economic form.”

— Mao Zedong, On Contradiction

Hsiao Sha-Fu and Ai Siqi, two Chinese Marxist philosophers, agreed that Mao's idea of integrating Western Marxist theory with Eastern practical application could be realized by critically examining China's cultural legacy through the lens of Marxist-Leninist methodologies. Ai Siqi maintained that it was essential to distill the essence of Chinese culture while discarding its less valuable aspects. Ai Siqi goes on to clarify his position and asserts his final judgment with conviction:

“What is its quintessence? It is that part of the heritage that is democratic, scientific, and for the masses. What are the dregs? They are what is anti-democratic, anti-scientific, and anti-people, or aristocratic. The culture we want to build up is that which is nationalistic, democratic, scientific, and for the masses. Therefore, what we want to continue is that in the old culture which is democratic, scientific, and for the masses, and we must throw away what is anti-democratic, anti-scientific, and anti-people. This should be the general attitude of Marxists-Leninists toward cultural heritage. This is a universal principle.”

— Ai Siqi, How to Carry Out a Criticism of The Culture of The Old Society

Mao addresses the transformation of culture with an outline that is somewhat broad, suggesting the removal of the old economic and cultural systems to make room for "the new politics, the new economy, and the new culture of the Chinese nation." There is a discernible note of prudence in his language, and he seeks to elaborate on his assertion that the old culture needs to be eradicated. This is reflected in his proposed strategy for cultivating a "new culture," as well as in his considerations for the destiny of China's "ancient culture."

Mao states that:

“To throw away its feudal dross, and to absorb its democratic essence [are] necessary condition for the development of our new national culture and for the increase of our national self-confidence; but we should never absorb anything and everything un- critically. We must separate all the rotten things of the ancient feudal ruling class from the fine ancient popular culture that is more or less democratic and revolutionary in character…we must respect our own history and should not cut ourselves adrift from it. However, this respect for history means only giving history a definite place among the sciences, respecting its dialectical development, but not eulogizing the ancient while disparaging the modern, or praising any noxious feudal element.”

— Mao Zedong, The Problem of Culture and Cultural Revolution

Mao's stance towards Confucius is complex and full of paradoxes, exhibiting a spectrum of reactions that oscillate between understanding and aversion. British author and professor Robert Payne, who interviewed Mao in 1946, observed that Confucian thought had left a significant imprint on Mao, despite Mao's admission, "I hated Confucius from the age of eight." This strong aversion is not merely anecdotal; it permeates Mao's writings, where he underscores the need to venerate Confucius and engage with classical texts, while simultaneously arguing that the old customs of etiquette (li) and the traditional approaches to education and philosophy are remnants of China's semi-feudal past that must be discarded.

In a twist, Raya Dunayevskaya, the American founder of Marxist Humanism, critiqued Mao's engagement with Confucianism in her 1957 work, Marxism and Freedom, describing it as a "perversion."

She elaborates in her book:

“So permeated to the marrow of his bones is Mao with Confucianism that it is doubtful he is even conscious that he is thereby perverting in toto the Hegelian-Marxian theory of development through contradiction.”

— Raya Dunayevskaya, Marxism and Freedom

Addressing Mao's proclaimed "hatred" towards Confucius, we revisit Mao's cultural attitudes to find a clear antagonism towards traditional Chinese philosophy, culture, and practices, as conveyed in a communication with the French Foreign Minister, Andre Malraux.

In that message, Mao states that:

“The thought, culture, and customs which brought China to where we found her [in 1949] must disappear, and the thought, customs, and culture of proletarian China, which do not yet exist, must appear.”

— Mao Zedong, Talks at the Yan'an Forum on Literature and Art May 1942

This implies that even Confucianism, which Mao felt was deeply ingrained in him, would need to be dismantled because, as Mao himself articulated, Confucianism is part of China’s “semi-feudal culture” that warranted subversion. Perhaps there were "democratic" and "revolutionary" aspects within Confucian doctrine that might be preserved. Moreover, Mao was not one to eschew "absolute" truths. In his various texts, he affirmed without reservation that dialectical materialism is "universally true," claiming it was inescapable in practice. Mao similarly hailed Marxism as a "universal truth" on multiple occasions in On New Democracy. Such categorical statements might have drawn criticism from Confucius, who stood firmly against dogmatism and never professed to have a monopoly on absolute truth.

In spite of the drive for cultural revolution, the communist leadership sought to maintain elements of Chinese heritage within their version of communism, presumably to avoid alienating the masses. It could be argued that "the Chinese Communists were too astute to completely discard China's cultural heritage." Cultural expressions like theater, plays, and literature were repurposed as instruments of public "re-education," morphing all facets of social life to fit within a Marxist framework aligned with Mao's revolutionary objectives. Thus, these bastions of culture became arenas for revolutionary transformation, with playwrights not only crafting new works but also adapting and "reforming" old favorites to fulfill this new role. Reports indicated that even ancient literature was being re-edited, and archaeological findings reinterpreted through a Marxist lens.

In a similar vein of utilizing historical roots to inform the current ideology, Liu Shao-ch’i, who served as Vice-Chairman of the Communist party of China and later as Chairman of the People's Republic of China, penned the influential text How To Be a Good Communist. This work weaves together foundational Chinese communist principles with selected references to Confucius, Mencius, and other historical Chinese philosophers. Liu did not denounce these philosophical figures; rather, he leveraged their stature to reinforce communist ideology. His inclusion of traditional Chinese philosophy underscores a strategic decision to create a sense of continuity within Chinese thought. Mao himself echoed this approach, rejecting the idea that a foreign culture would supplant the old, as he stated:

“China has suffered a great deal from the mechanical absorption of foreign material. Similarly, in applying Marxism to China, Chinese communists must fully and properly integrate the universal truth of Marxism with the concrete practice of the Chinese revolution, or in other words, the universal truth of Marxism must be combined with specific national characteristics and acquire a definite national form if it is to be useful, and in no circumstances can it be applied subjectively as a mere formula…Chinese culture should have its own form, its own national form. National in form and new-democratic in content—such is our new culture today.”

— Mao Zedong, Talks at the Yan'an Forum on Literature and Art May 1942

This "blending" extended beyond the assimilation of external concepts, also encompassing elements from traditional Chinese customs and culture that could be selectively preserved and integrated.

“To make clear the process by which this traditional culture developed, to discard its feudal residue, and to absorb its democratic essence, are necessary steps for developing our new national culture and heightening our national self-confidence. This assimilation, however, must never be uncritical. We must carefully distinguish between those completely rotten aspects of the old culture that were linked with the feudal ruling class, and the excellent popular culture, which was more or less democratic and revolutionary in character.”

— Mao Zedong, Talks at the Yan'an Forum on Literature and Art May 1942

Making these distinctions was far from straightforward, particularly when the goal was to retain aspects of China's cultural legacy.
Conclusions

In 1953, Dr. H.G. Creel, a scholar of Chinese philosophy from the University of Chicago, embarked on a study to examine the impact of communist ascendancy on the mindset of the broader Chinese populace. Four years into communist governance, Creel observed some evident trends concerning the contemporary Chinese mentality. For instance, he pointed out that Mao Zedong's declarations appeared atypically non-Chinese in their essence. The ideological structure was predominantly Marxist, with occasional references to Chinese culture that seemed somewhat forced, perhaps to mitigate the perception of the writings as too foreign.

Creel highlighted the tools employed by the communist regime, such as the widespread "re-education" initiatives and revolutionary "study groups," where countless individuals spent considerable time daily engrossed in the works of Marxist theorists like Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao Zedong. Creel underscored the dramatic shift in children's attitudes towards their parents, pointing out that filial piety, once a core value of Chinese culture, was being undermined. In traditional China, the idea of children testifying against their parents was not only taboo but also a legal offense. The establishment of public "mass trials" and other propaganda mechanisms, however, encouraged young people to renounce long-standing traditions of filial respect by publicly accusing their parents, thus affirming their allegiance to the communist cause. These changes signify a profound, if not tectonic, upheaval of age-old Chinese customs, arguably a consequence of the insidious influence of Mao's ideology and the introduction of Marxism and communism into Eastern society.

More than four decades after Mao's death, his profound influence still casts a spectral presence over various facets of China, including its people, culture, economy, government, and social structure. His blend of Marxism, communism, radicalism, iconoclasm, and philosophical synthesis has left an indelible impact on the Chinese ethos. Yet, Mao's worldview and his grandiose plans were not born in isolation; they were the culmination of the aspirations of a radical Chinese intellectual vanguard that preceded him. These aspirations, once dormant, were brought to fruition under Mao's leadership, resulting in a profound cultural and spiritual upheaval that fragmented a civilization with thousands of years of rich heritage. This upheaval dismantled longstanding traditions, artifacts, and philosophical insights of a storied people. Following Mao's passing, it was Deng Xiaoping who built upon Mao's legacy, steering China towards the formation of the modern state we recognize today.

[Wayne Hall]

Zoran Zoltanous
Jan 6

Christianity
and Fascism

by Doomernationalist

Jan 6



Introduction

There is a common misconception that fascism, in the post-World War II era, aimed to eliminate established religions and replace them with the power of the State. However, this view is far from accurate. Fascism actually emerged as a response to an existential crisis caused by the dominance of Anglo-American Liberalism, seeking to protect religious freedom within their respective countries. Fascist movements developed organically, aiming to eliminate harmful beliefs and subversive elements that were tearing societies apart for the benefit of hostile interest groups.

Fascism, based on its core principles, adopted a state policy known as "Positive Christianity," as described by Adolf Hitler in a speech on February 18, 1929. Hitler emphasized that the nationalist worldview, be it Fascist or National Socialist, had a strong alignment with Christianity.

“The nationalist worldview - whether Fascist in Italy or National Socialist in Germany, is a positively Christian one, and every good Catholic, just like every convinced Protestant, can be an opponent of parliament and a supporter of the dictatorship of the national idea."

— Adolf Hitler, speech February 18, 1929

Fascism is founded on an idealistic philosophy and worldview that is fully compatible with Christian theology. The intention of this paper is to demonstrate how Christians who participated in their respective fascist movements within their countries upheld and embodied a genuine expression of Christianity.

Why Fascists Choose a Secular-style State

Regarding prominent fascist parties such as NFP, NSDAP, BUF, and FE de las JONS, their Christian character did not necessarily make them theocratic like some other fascist parties (which we'll discuss later). However, advocating for a secular state does not imply an anti-Christian stance; in fact, it can be viewed as a pro-Christian position. Oswald Mosley, in his book Fascism: 100 Questions Asked and Answered, expressed the fascist attitude toward religion by quoting the Bible: "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's." Mosley emphasized that fascism's concern lies with the nation rather than the church. As long as religious practices do not undermine the state's interests, they are tolerated and allowed in the nation.

The Italians held a similar perspective. In an article titled Church and State published on December 2, 1934, Benito Mussolini argued that when a state opposes religion, it will ultimately be the loser. Mussolini stated that fighting against religion is futile as it is an intangible and profound spirit, especially referring to the Catholic Church, which always emerges victorious from conflicts. Mussolini provided the example of Otto Von Bismarck's hostile stance against the Church, highlighting how it resulted in the rise of Catholic deputies and the moral resistance of the German Catholic world. Ultimately, Bismarck capitulated before Leo XIII, recognizing him as the arbiter of an international dispute. Mussolini also criticized Napoleon I for his policy toward the Church, noting that attempting to oppress the Vatican and popes proved to be a grave mistake.

Mussolini asserted that, despite the tensions between the Church and the Italian state, it was the fascist regime that achieved a resolution by signing the Lateran Pact in 1929. This significant agreement, which will be explored in detail later, effectively established a framework for harmonizing the relationship between the church and the state.

Mussolini concludes the article by stating that the Fascist State is highly totalitarian and authoritarian. It values its sovereignty and prestige, and therefore does not see the need to intervene in matters beyond its jurisdiction or unrelated to its essence. Mussolini emphasizes that those who have ventured down such a path have eventually realized their mistake. In a speech to the Second Quinquennial Assembly of the Fascist Regime, he explicitly stated that anyone who undermines or disrupts the religious unity of a nation commits a grave offense against the nation, equating it to a capital crime.

In Italy, the decision to separate the Church and State was not driven by an atheistic or secularistic hatred of the Church. Rather, it was based on a recognition of the spiritual nature of religion and the belief that the State should not interfere in such matters. Hence, a metaphorical barrier was established to ensure this separation. The Christian position on the relationship between Church and State is rooted in Scripture. As Oswald Mosley previously quoted from the Gospel of Mark, Scripture teaches that God should be separate from the State. Christians are instructed to submit to governing authorities, as it is part of God's will.

Romans 13:1-7 elaborates on this concept, emphasizing that all authority comes from God, and resisting it is resisting God's ordinance. Rulers are meant to punish evil and reward good. Christians are urged to be subject to the governing authorities, not only out of fear but also for the sake of conscience. This includes paying taxes and giving honor to whom it is due.

This view of the relationship between Church and State is also reflected in other biblical texts, such as 2nd Peter and the book of Titus. Furthermore, Church history and teaching, including Eastern Orthodox thought, espouse the concept of Symphonia, which advocates for the complementarity of church and state, with mutual respect and no domination by either institution. The Vatican also upholds the right to religious freedom, stating that individuals should not be coerced to act against their own beliefs. Therefore, the idea of separating Church and State is not anti-Christian. It is firmly rooted in Scripture and Church teaching. Fascists embraced this Christian perspective, resulting in a state that was separate from the church but guided by Christian principles.

The Similarities Between Christian Social Teaching and Fascism

In addition to the relationship between Church and State, there are other similarities between Christianity and Fascism. Fascism, with its motto of "Me ne frego" (meaning "I don't care" or "I don't give a damn"), can be seen as a philosophy that embraces a religious and optimistic view of life. Fascists love life and see it as something to be conquered, resisting selfish desires. This aligns closely with the teachings of Christianity, which emphasizes the importance of valuing and respecting life. Christians are called to treat their bodies as temples and to avoid selfishness, prioritizing the interests of others.

Fascism also promotes a totalitarian lifestyle, where individuals control their desires and strive for virtue. This is reminiscent of the teachings of celibacy and self-denial found in Orthodox Monks and Catholic Priests. While Fascism is both a philosophy and a political ideology, it encompasses principles such as anti-individualism, anti-materialism, nationalism, and meritocracy. These ideas are interconnected, as the collectivist nature of Fascism emphasizes the strength of unity, often achieved through invoking common traditions and customs. Materialism is incompatible with the spiritual lifestyle advocated by Fascism. Meritocracy, the idea that positions of power should be based on an individual's ability, is also valued in Fascism.

When comparing Fascism with biblical teachings, Social Catholic teaching, and Orthodox Social teaching, there are similarities. The Bible emphasizes collectivism, with Jesus teaching to love one's neighbor as oneself. Social Catholic Teaching promotes the pursuit of the common good, recognizing that it is not good for individuals to be alone and emphasizing the importance of family and community. Nationalism, defined as advocating for national self-determination and loyalty, is not contradictory to Christianity, as the church is universal in nature, as stated in Galatians 3:28.

Loving one's nation and striving for its protection is not contradictory to Christianity. The Russian Orthodox Church recognizes the importance of national identity and self-expression alongside the universal nature of the Church. Jesus Himself acknowledged His belonging to the Jewish nation while emphasizing the universal nature of His teachings. Saints in the Orthodox Church are praised for their love of their earthly homeland and faithfulness to it. The Church has historically blessed the people to defend their homeland and participate in liberation wars. Christian patriotism can be expressed both in relation to the ethnic community and the community of citizens. Orthodox Christians are called to actively defend their homeland, work for its good, and preserve and develop national culture. This active patriotism is seen as a way of fulfilling the commandment of love for one's neighbor.

Christianity strongly opposes hateful chauvinism and promotes the principle of loving one's neighbor. While nationalism is acknowledged as a value for Christians to uphold, it is important to differentiate it from the distorted racial views associated with Nazism. Léon Degrelle, a member of the Rexist party and the Waffen SS Division Wallonien, argued that true National Socialism is not about tearing down other races or nations, but rather about fostering unity and constructive identity within one's own country.

The principles of anti-materialism and traditionalism can also be found in the Bible. In Matthew 6:24, Jesus warns against serving both God and material wealth, highlighting the importance of prioritizing spiritual values over material possessions. Additionally, 2nd Thessalonians 2:15 urges believers to hold fast to the traditions they have been taught, whether orally or through written teachings.

The Economics of Scripture, The Church, and Fascism

Before delving into the pro-Christian policies implemented in National Socialist Germany and Fascist Italy, it is important to explore the similarities between the economic principles found in the Bible, the teachings of the Church, and the economic framework of Fascism.

Corporatism plays a crucial role in Fascism, though it should be noted that corporatism itself is not synonymous with Fascism. Fascism requires a form of corporatism, but the term has been misconstrued to mean "crony capitalism" or similar concepts. In reality, corporatism derives from the Latin word "corpus," meaning body. In 1881, Pope Leo XIII commissioned theologians and social thinkers to study corporatism and provide a definition. The resulting declaration in 1884 in Freiburg defined corporatism as:

"A system of social organization that has at its base the grouping of individuals according to the community of their natural interests and social functions. As true and integral organs of the state, they direct and coordinate labor and capital in matters of common interest."

— Howard J. Wiarda, Corporatism and Comparative Politics: The Other Great "ism"

This system can be traced back to Scripture, particularly in 1 Corinthians 12:12-31, which illustrates the diversity and unity of the body. The passage emphasizes that, just as the human body comprises various members, each with its own function, the same principle applies to society and the economy.

Corporatist thinking is also prevalent in Social Catholic Teaching. Pope Leo XIII's encyclical Rerum Novarum, addresses the relationship between capital and labor. In this encyclical, Pope Leo XIII not only defends private property and labor rights but specifically calls for a market-corporatist system. This system promotes collaboration among different classes rather than pitting them against each other. Paragraph 19 of the encyclical emphasizes the irrationality and falseness of the notion that classes are inherently antagonistic. Instead, it highlights the natural harmony and agreement that should exist between the wealthy and the working class for the well-being of the entire society. The encyclical emphasizes the mutual interdependence of capital and labor and the importance of maintaining a balance in the body politic. It also highlights the role of Christian institutions, particularly the Church, in fostering understanding, reminding individuals of their responsibilities to one another, and promoting justice.

By applying these principles and ways of thinking to an economy and society at large, a corporatist framework emerges. This framework seeks to foster collaboration and harmony among different segments of society. It recognizes the importance of mutual agreement and rejects perpetual conflict, which only leads to confusion and barbarity. Christian institutions, with the Church as their interpreter and guardian, play a vital role in bringing together different social classes and reminding them of their obligations to one another.

The encyclical does advocate for a specific form of corporatism known as "distributism," but the fundamental principles of corporatism can still be found. These principles include class collaboration, respect for private property, improved worker conditions, the establishment of order, and the organization of the economy as a cohesive body.

Corporatism also serves as an essential economic structure in Fascism, as it was implemented in every Fascist country, such as National Socialist Germany, Fascist Italy, and Justicialist Argentina. The Doctrine of Fascism explicitly states the incorporation of real needs that gave rise to socialism and trade unionism within the corporative system, where divergent interests are coordinated and harmonized under the unity of the State.

In Fascist Italy, the National Council of Corporations was established in 1930, allowing representatives from various sectors of the economy to come together and address issues collectively. The Corporate State proved highly successful in Italy, benefiting not only employers or employees but the entire country. The elimination of individualism from the Italian economy was noted by Paul Einzig in his book, The Economic Foundations of Fascism.

It should be noted that the corporatism of Fascism differs from that of Christianity and the Catholic Church. Christian corporatism, known as "distributism," is more decentralized, favoring a worker co-op model. Distributism also exhibits a localist and agrarian character. In contrast, Fascist corporatism is more centralized and leans towards central planning. However, both Fascism and Social Catholic Teaching share core principles of corporatism, such as improving worker conditions, preserving the ability to own businesses or land, organizing the economy as a unified body, and regulating the economy for the common good.

In fact, the corporatism implemented in Italy garnered significant support from Catholics. Nicholas Farrell, in his biography of Mussolini, highlights the alignment between the idea of corporations and the social teachings of the Catholic Church. Pope Leo XIII's encyclical Rerum Novarum in 1892 rejected class warfare in favor of class collaboration. Pope Pius XI also expressed the Catholic Church's position, stating that capitalism and communism were united in their "Satanic optimism." Further similarities between Fascist economics and the Church's teachings can be observed in their respect for work. Christ's teachings in the Gospel of Luke, emphasizing that the Kingdom of God belongs to the poor, and the Church's longstanding emphasis on respecting workers align with the Fascist perspective. The Charter of Labour of 1927 in Fascist Italy recognized work as a social obligation safeguarded by the State, with the objective of promoting the well-being of producers and national development.

Fascist Italy also provided significant protections for workers, with cooperation between employers and employees often benefiting the latter. Another shared aspect between Fascist economics and the Church's teachings is the rejection of both capitalism and Marxian socialism. The Church's encyclical Divini Redemptoris criticized communism for its materialism, atheism, and immorality. Similarly, the Church never supported capitalism, as stated in paragraph 2425 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Fascists held a similar position, with Argentinian Justicialist Juan Peron describing his ideology as a "Third Position" between capitalism and socialism. This concept of a third position was present in Fascism from its inception in Italy.

Fascists and the Church share a common dislike for communism and capitalism due to their materialistic and individualistic nature, which neglects the spiritual aspect of humanity. Both believe in a balanced approach, supporting capital against Marxian Socialism when it threatens private property and supporting labor against monopolistic capitalism when it prioritizes profits over a just wage.

Anti-usury, a prominent aspect of National Socialist thought, aligns with the Church's stance. The National Socialist publication by Gottfried Feder, The Manifesto for Breaking Interest Slavery, called for the abolition of usury, interest slavery, and the nationalization of banks. This critique of Mammonism, the excessive pursuit of wealth, is similar to Christ's teachings in the Gospel of Matthew, where he emphasizes that one cannot serve both God and Mammon.

The Third Reich implemented these ideas by banning usury, nationalizing banks, and issuing interest-free loans. This anti-usury stance is consistent with the Church's position, as early Church Fathers and numerous Church councils condemned usury. Prominent figures such as St. Jerome, St. Augustine, and Pope St. Leo the Great, as well as Popes Alexander III, Gregory IX, Urban III, Innocent III, and Clement V, all denounced usury. St. Thomas Aquinas also criticized usury, highlighting its unjust and unequal nature. The influence of Christianity on National Socialist economic policies is evident, with many positions aligning with Catholic teachings. Joseph Goebbels even described modern Germans as "Christ-socialists," emphasizing the love and compassion of Christ in contrast to what he perceived as the hatred embodied by Judaism.

Christian Ant-Semitism and The Fascist Racism

The common assumption that Fascism is inherently anti-Semitic and racist overlooks important nuances. While it is true that Christianity promotes love and condemns irrational hate, it is important to challenge the false presuppositions regarding Fascism. Fascism is not inherently racist, as evidenced by the existence of Fascist parties across different races, such as the Black Fascists in America led by Marcus Garvey and Lawrence Dennis, and Arabic Fascists like Gamal Abdel Nasser and the Muslim Association of the Lictor.

In his book Mussolini's Intellectuals, James Gregor argues that Fascist racism between 1922 and 1938 was essentially benign and differed significantly from the malevolent racism prevalent in German National Socialism. The major Fascist intellectuals did not hold racist beliefs found in National Socialist circles, and they rejected the idea of attributing human behavior solely to biological causes. They did not believe that an entire population could be collectively guilty based on ill-defined racial traits.

The misconception that all Fascism is akin to German National Socialism further contributes to the belief that Fascism is racist. However, even German National Socialism did not promote an irrational hatred of different races. In the publication Faith and Action by National Socialist propagandist Helmut Stellrecht, it is stated that “race is defined by one's ability to think in a certain way”, rather than solely physical characteristics. This idealistic perspective on race is not inherently incompatible with Christianity.

Similarly, one does not have to be anti-Semitic to be a Fascist. Jewish Fascists existed, and a substantial number of Italian Jews were members of the National Fascist party (PNF) in 1938. While anti-Semitism did emerge in Fascist Italy around that time, it was not rooted in biology and was not as radical as commonly believed. Mussolini's hostility towards Jews was driven by his opposition to communism, anti-Fascism, and the bourgeoisie, which he believed Jews epitomized. The aim was to combat the bourgeois spirit rather than target Jews as a race.

The legal implementation of anti-Semitism in Italy was relatively weak. The Race Charter, drafted by the Grand Council of Fascism, defined a Jew based on parental heritage or belonging to the Jewish faith. The laws restricted certain rights and privileges for Jews but were not as stringent as the German definition of a Jew. It is important to recognize that Fascist anti-Semitism in Italy was primarily rooted in a spiritual war against the bourgeoisie, internationalism, and communism, rather than a genuine hatred of Jews as a race.

According to Farrell, the Catholic Church's hostility towards Jews had similar origins to that of Fascism. The Jesuits, a powerful force within the Catholic Church, expressed anti-Jewish sentiments similar to those of the Fascists. They believed that communism was a Jewish plot and portrayed Jews as the epitome of the bourgeoisie and a danger to society. This anti-Jewish sentiment was ingrained in Catholic teachings for centuries.

Roberto Farinacci, a Fascist leader, acknowledged that the anti-Semitic conscience within Catholicism had been formed over millennia and could not be renounced in a few weeks. The Catholic Church, as well as Scripture itself, has historically held anti-Jewish beliefs due to the rejection of Christ, the crucifixion of Jesus, and the persecution of Christians by Jews. Biblical passages such as 1 Thessalonians 2:14-15, the gospel of John chapter 5 verses 16-18, and Matthew 27:24–25 explicitly mention the role of Jews in the crucifixion of Jesus.

These anti-Jewish sentiments were echoed by Church fathers and saints throughout history. For example, St. John Chrysostom made hateful remarks about Jews, describing them as sacrificing their children to Satan and comparing them to wild beasts. St. Jerome associated Jews with Judas Iscariot and emphasized their immoral use of money. Hippolytus of Rome believed that Jews had been eternally darkened in their souls.

The National Socialists in Germany held anti-Jewish sentiments, as evident in the 25 point program of the NSDAP, which stated that Jews would not be considered citizens. Adolf Hitler himself claimed to be acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator in defending himself against the Jews. Joseph Goebbels, in a publication named Those Damned Nazis, argued that anti-Semitism was not only compatible with Christianity but necessary in loving one's neighbor, as the neighbor was considered a racial and blood brother.

The National Socialists also held Martin Luther in high regard, with Hitler stating that Luther was one of the three greatest men given to the German people. Luther, the founder of Protestantism, had expressed anti-Jewish sentiments in his writings. In Luther's book On The Jews and Their Lies from 1543, he criticized Jewish rejection of Jesus and accused them of spreading lies and hatred against Christianity. The Nazis distributed Luther's book at their rallies, using it to further their anti-Semitic agenda. Therefore, it can be concluded that Christianity, in its historical context, has displayed inherent opposition to Judaism, and this anti-Judaism had a significant influence on the ideologies of Fascism and National Socialism.

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: In defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

— Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

The Catholicism of Fascist Italy

Mussolini played a crucial role in the success of Fascism, but he was not its theoretical architect. That distinction belongs to Giovanni Gentile, the philosopher behind Fascism. Gentile wrote extensively on the origins and doctrines of Fascism and developed the neo-Hegelian philosophy of actualism, which served as the intellectual foundation for Fascism. It is worth noting that Gentile, despite being a Catholic, consistently emphasized the Christian heritage of actualism, reinforcing its connection to his Catholic faith. Antonio G. Pesce further asserts that “there is no doubt about Gentile's Catholicism.”

In his work La Mia Religione, Gentile stated that:

“I am a Christian… because I believe in the religion of the spirit… Catholic… since I came into the world in June 1875. And I am sorry, therefore, not to be able to tell you about any crisis… a sudden conversion, [or] a thunderbolt. I have been prosaically walking the road to Damascus since the day I was born. Every day since then I have gone on thinking and deepening my ideas and if you insist on talking about conversions, I can say that my conversion is the story of each and every day.”

— Giovanni Gentile, My Religion

In his influential work, The Theory of Mind as Pure Act, Gentile expressed his views on spiritual reality and faith. He emphasized the importance of wholeheartedly seeking spiritual truth and satisfying the deepest needs of one's life. Gentile's writings reflect his Catholicism and his disdain for materialism, nihilism, and atheism. His philosophy clearly demonstrates his strong religious beliefs.

In contrast, Mussolini's early life was marked by atheism and blasphemy. In a debate in 1904, he famously challenged God to strike him down within ten minutes. However, his criticism was primarily directed towards the Catholic Church, which he viewed as a symbol of tyranny and corruption. Mussolini even praised Jan Hus, a priest who opposed the Catholic Church's corruption. Later, Mussolini's perspective on religion changed. He began to seek spirituality and found it first in Socialism, then in Fascism, and eventually in a fusion of Fascism and Catholicism.

Becoming a Fascist leader prompted Mussolini to take spirituality more seriously. He expressed his profound religious spirit at the Lausanne conference in 1922 and acknowledged the possibility of a divine force in the universe. When asked about his belief in God in Talks With Mussolini, he mentioned his earlier disbelief but acknowledged the potential existence of a divine power. Mussolini developed a faith in something beyond the material world.

It is clear that Mussolini's hostility towards Catholicism was not due to a lack of belief in God but rather a reaction to the actions of the Catholic Church. However, as he gained power, Mussolini became more drawn towards religion and Catholicism. He publicly expressed the significance of religion in the life of a great and powerful nation. He had a Catholic wedding, was baptized in 1927, and had his children baptized as well. Nevertheless, some speculate that these actions were motivated by political advantage and a desire to appease the Catholic Church. However, during the invasion of Ethiopia, Mussolini's prayers and the act of kissing his mother's rosary suggest a genuine conversion may have taken place.

Regardless of whether Mussolini personally converted to Christianity, it is evident that under his leadership, Christianity was protected in Italy. Historically, the Italian State and the Vatican had a contentious relationship. In 1871, the Italian government attempted to resolve the conflict with the "Legge delle Guarentigie," which offered the Pope certain privileges, but he refused to accept the law or renounce his claim to temporal sovereignty over his lost territories. This refusal posed a challenge for Italy, leaving it vulnerable to invasion and causing difficulties for Italian Catholics who were excluded from participating in politics until after World War I. However, Mussolini and the Fascist state took a different approach. They aimed to resolve the "Roman Question." The Lateran Treaty, signed on February 11, 1929, and ratified by the Italian parliament on June 7, 1929, recognized the full sovereignty of the Holy See in the State of Vatican City. The treaty also provided a financial settlement for the Holy See following the loss of its territories in 1870.

Under the Fascist regime, Catholicism was made the state religion, and various actions and laws reflected the beliefs of the Church. Public swearing and blaspheming clergy members became crimes, and the clergy were exempt from taxation. The regime promoted traditional gender roles through initiatives like the "Battle of Births," which included banning male homosexuality, abortion, contraceptives, and regulating women's clothing in public. The "Battle of Births" also offered loans to married couples, with part of the loan forgiven for each new child, and exempted married men with more than six children from taxation. A bachelor tax was introduced, and prostitution was heavily punished, resulting in the closure of brothels and bars.

Giovanni Gentile, as Education Minister in 1923, made it mandatory to have a crucifix in classrooms and introduced the teaching of religion in primary schools for the first time since 1877. Mussolini himself acknowledged the significance of the peace between the Quirinal and the Vatican, recognizing the sovereignty of the Holy See and the important role of the Catholic Church in the religious life of the Italian people. In summary, Mussolini and the Fascist regime ensured the protection of Christianity in Italy, establishing Catholicism as the state religion and implementing policies and laws aligned with the beliefs of the Church. The Lateran Treaty resolved the longstanding conflict between the Italian State and the Vatican, recognizing the sovereignty of the Holy See and providing a financial settlement.

Fascist Italy and The Accusation of Statolatry

Statolatry refers to the worship of the state, treating it as a deity. This accusation of paganism was often used as a slander against the Fascist state in Italy. However, this claim is far from the truth. The encyclical Non abbiamo bisogno popularized this slander, accusing Italian Fascism of engaging in "pagan worship of the state" and being anti-Catholic. This sudden change in attitude can be attributed to a crisis that arose in 1931 between the state and the Catholic Church due to the activities of a Catholic youth group called "Azione Cattolica Italiana" (Catholic Action). The group's membership had grown significantly since the Lateran Accords, which led to an attack on the youth group by the Fascist press.

Giuseppe Bottai, in his magazine "Critica fascista," accused Azione Cattolica of encroaching on the syndicalist and corporatist system, attempting to create a rival ruling class, and steering Italian youth towards outdated ideologies. The Pope believed that the Church should have had more representation in the workforce and criticized modernization efforts in Italy, such as women participating in sports. He insinuated that the Italian state was not truly Catholic. In response, on May 31, Mussolini ordered the closure of any youth groups not controlled by the Partito Nazionale Fascista or the Opera Nazionale Balilla. This included Catholic youth groups that were guaranteed under the Lateran Accords. However, the conflict between the Church and the Fascist state soon came to an end. Mussolini decreed that members of the Partito Nazionale Fascista could not be members of Azione Cattolica, but he assured the Pope that the group could continue if it focused solely on religious matters. A compromise was reached on September 2, 1931, through an agreement between the Vatican and Mussolini, treated as a codicil to the Lateran Accords. The agreement stated that Azione Cattolica would be controlled by the bishops rather than the Vatican, its leaders could not come from banned opposition parties, and it would not engage in politics or trade union activities. Mussolini lifted the ban on simultaneous membership in the Partito Nazionale Fascista and Azione Cattolica, allowing the Catholic youth groups to continue with the condition that they ceased athletic activities.

Within three months of the encyclical's release, the Church and the state reached an agreement and restored peace, which lasted until 1938. In an article published on December 2, 1934, Mussolini explicitly rejected statolatry, emphasizing that religion was free and independent within the Fascist conception of the totalitarian state. He clarified that the idea of creating a new state religion or subordinating existing religions to the state never crossed their minds. While Italy was predominantly Catholic, the real concern was not paganism but rather Freemasonry. The Fascist campaign against Freemasonry intensified in 1925 after Tito Zaniboni, a member of a Masonic lodge, was arrested with a sniper rifle near where Mussolini was due to appear. Fascism had always been anti-Masonic, and in 1923, masons were banned from joining the Partito Nazionale Fascista. Mussolini clarified that Italian masonry had little in common with English or American masonry, and he believed that its influence was detrimental to discipline in the army, impartiality in the courts, and the order that should prevail in public offices. Mussolini stated that Fascism had dealt a significant blow to Italian masonry, making it difficult for it to regain influence for some time.

Mussolini's characterization of Freemasonry as a shady institution involved in bribery and blackmail reflects the anti-Masonic stance of Fascism. Freemasonry was indeed banned in Italy in 1925, and many masons were exiled or faced other consequences for refusing to leave their lodges. This position aligns with the Catholic Church's historical conflict with Freemasonry. In 1983, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) declared that Catholics who were masons were in a state of grave sin and prohibited from receiving Holy Communion.

Italy, under Fascism, was not a pagan nation or government. On the contrary, Fascism made Italy an official Catholic state, promoting and legislating Catholic values and discriminating against anti-Catholic forces. Even after the falling out between Fascism and the Vatican in 1938 due to the racial laws, Fascism did not lose its Catholic heritage. When the Italian Social Republic was declared in 1943, it was established as a Catholic state.

Christianity of National Socialist Germany

The Third Reich has often been subject to misrepresentation and falsehoods, particularly regarding its stance on Christianity. It is commonly claimed that the Nazis aimed to eradicate Christianity from Germany and replace it with a nationalized version or even a new religion. However, this portrayal is inaccurate. President Franklin D. Roosevelt once stated that the Nazis sought to abolish all religions, but this claim does not hold true. While there were individuals within the Nazi party who held pagan beliefs, it is incorrect to suggest that the entire regime was hell-bent on destroying Christian faith in Germany or resurrecting Nordic Paganism.

To understand the religious perspective of National Socialism in Germany, it is important to examine the beliefs of the NSDAP and its high-ranking members. The party platform, specifically Point 24, stated that religious freedom should be granted to all denominations as long as they did not pose a threat to the state or contradict the moral values of the Germanic race. The party advocated for a concept called "positive Christianity," which encompassed the values of true Christianity without aligning itself with a specific denomination.

Positive Christianity, contrary to some misinterpretations, was not a state policy aimed at controlling religion, but rather a call for unity between the major Christian churches in Germany, namely the Evangelical and Roman Catholic churches. Adolf Hitler himself referred to positive Christianity as the Christianity represented by these two churches, urging them to use the moral teachings of the Gospel to positively influence the German nation.

Positive Christianity can be understood as practical Christianity, emphasizing not only the expression of faith but also the active love and care for one's neighbors. It aimed to promote a genuine and authentic form of Christianity, not limited to any particular church. According to Professor Cajus Fabricius in his work Positive Christianity In The Third Reich, positive Christianity represented the innermost life, spirit, and soul of the German people under National Socialism.

The National Socialists' concept of "positive Christianity" did not refer to a specific denomination or religious belief. Instead, it represented a commitment to a genuine form of Christianity that was not confined by denominational dogma, but rather rooted in the teachings of Christ and the Gospels. It was not a call for a theocratic merging of Church and State, but rather a policy of religious freedom guided by their understanding of true Christianity. National Socialism aimed to unite the German people and restore them to their traditional values, recognizing that Christianity held deep roots in German society.

Various NSDAP officials, including evangelical member Walter Buch, echoed this sentiment. Buch emphasized that Point 24 of the party program, which embraced positive Christianity, was the cornerstone of their thinking. He drew parallels between Christ's preaching and the necessity for individuals to make definitive choices, as Christ did in his life. Buch highlighted the importance of personal decisions between yes and no, reflecting the National Socialist belief in individual responsibility.

Gottfried Feder, another figure within the NSDAP, affirmed that the party stood on the basis of positive Christianity. However, he also made it clear that the party distanced itself from attempts to politicize and merge Christianity with pagan beliefs, such as the Wotan cult. This suggests that the NSDAP sought to uphold a distinct form of positive Christianity that was not associated with pagan practices. These views reflect the Third Reich's policy on Christianity, which emphasized a genuine dedication to Christ and his teachings, along with a commitment to religious freedom. The aim was to unite German Christians under a shared understanding of positive Christianity.

Wilhelm Stapel further explored the relationship between Christianity and National Socialism:

“The Stance of National Socialism towards Christianity” he would state “National Socialism as a party does not embrace the aspirations of an exclusive "German religion" of any kind; second, that it feels itself to belong to "positive Christianity." The word "positive" here is obviously meant to signify the two expressions of Christianity in the Protestant and Catholic churches (i.e., rejection of an unchurched reason-based Christianity) and is probably also meant to reject the historicization and psychologization of Christianity as well as any philosophical surrogate.”

“Christianity of the state as such is rejected; the state will tolerate any religious confession. But this liberal kind of tolerance experiences two limitations. First, the "Germanic sense of morality" is not to be violated. This goes above all to pacifism. No tolerance is granted to Christian pacifism. Secondly, the "Jewish materialistic spirit" is to be fought. This goes to Marxism. Undoubtedly, with these words, tolerance is also denounced to any Christian socialism that incorporates the teachings of Karl Marx. So the tolerance is granted only to a non-pacifist and non-Marxist religion. Feder's sentence against "people who receive their political orders from abroad," a sentence directed against ultramontanism, has been deleted in recent issues, probably as a result of attacks from the Catholic side. We are thus dealing with a limited state-liberalism.”

— Wilhelm Stapel, Six Chapters on Christianity and National Socialism

The NSDAP's policy under the Third Reich was to combat anything that went against the wellbeing of the Germanic people, whether it be Jewish or pacifistic Christianity. They advocated for a separation of Church and State while still honoring the Christian heritage of the Germanic people. They rejected materialistic and pacifistic religions but upheld a genuine form of Biblical Christianity.

Some may argue that this was merely pandering, as there were atheist members of the NSDAP and high-ranking officials who held Nordic Pagan beliefs and were critical of Christianity. However, this claim is unfounded. Adolf Hitler, who was born and raised in a predominantly Christian country and raised Catholic, consistently proclaimed his strong Christian faith. He made several statements emphasizing his Christian beliefs. In a speech in 1922, Hitler referred to Jesus as a fighter and drew inspiration from his actions against the Jews. In another speech in 1928, he acknowledged Jesus as the forerunner in the fight against Judaism and praised the role of the Catholic Church. In a 1936 speech to the Reichstag, Hitler stated that he believed he was acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator by fighting against the Jews. He frequently referenced Lord God and declared himself a Catholic as late as 1941.

Hitler went to great lengths to denounce atheism and promote the idea that National Socialism was a Christian movement. In his first radio broadcast as Reich Chancellor in 1933, he emphasized the importance of Christianity as the basis of morality and the family as the foundation of the nation. He declared that the National Government would protect and defend these foundations. In various speeches, he expressed his opposition to attacks on Christianity and affirmed that the NSDAP was a Christian movement.

The speech by Joseph Goebbels in 1928 titled "Knowledge and Propaganda" showcases his belief in Christianity and his admiration for Christ's teachings. He emphasizes the simplicity and power of Christ's message to love one's neighbor, which he believes enabled Christianity to conquer the world. Goebbels sees his own Christian faith as a responsibility to love others and places the good of the whole above personal interests, aligning with National Socialist principles.

In his book Michael: Pages From a German Destiny, Goebbels reflects on his Christian faith, reading the Bible at night and contemplating the figure of Jesus Christ. He sees Christ as a source of strength and acknowledges his admiration for him. Goebbels also expresses his disdain for secularism, believing that “a nation without religion is like a man without breath.” He asserts that the NSDAP is grounded in the Christian worldview, even though it is not affiliated with a specific denomination.

The support of German Protestant Christians was crucial to the electoral success of the NSDAP. Scholar Dick Geary, in his paper Who Voted For The Nazis, highlights that the first breakthroughs for the Nazis occurred in Protestant rural areas, where discontent with traditional representatives from the DNVP was prevalent. Geary notes that constituencies with the highest proportion of Nazi voters were often found in Protestant farming communities. This suggests that the support of Protestant Christians played a significant role in the popularity of the NSDAP.

Positive Christianity In Practice

National Socialism promised a newfound level of religious freedom in Germany, ushering in a religious revival under the banner of positive Christianity. Contrary to claims of secularization, historian Herbert F. Ziegler discovered that religious practice and church membership did not substantially decline between 1933 and 1939.

In the book The Big Lie of Political Catholicism published in 1938, a detailed account of religious activity in the Third Reich challenges the notion that religious freedom was curtailed. It argues that since 1933, all religious practices, including daily masses, Sunday services, sacraments, and church activities, were only prohibited if the pulpit was misused for political demagoguery against the state. The book counters the belief that the church was exceptionally restricted, asserting that pastors had the same freedoms and rights as any other citizen. Furthermore, the book provides statistics on church construction in Germany, revealing a significant number of new monasteries built between 1932 and 1935. This suggests a vibrant religious establishment, with a new religious institution being established every 1.5 days. The pace of church building in National Socialist Germany was unparalleled, reflecting a robust church-building activity rarely seen in other countries.

The construction of numerous churches challenges the notion that the regime aimed to eradicate Christianity. If the goal was to eliminate Christianity, why invest in the construction of new churches? In addition to promoting religious freedom, the Nazi regime protected religious art and saved old church buildings of artistic value from decay. State funds were allocated annually to preserve ecclesiastical art, demonstrating a commitment to the cultural and artistic heritage of Christianity. This contradicts the idea that the regime sought to suppress religious expression. The case of George Grosz, an artist charged with blasphemy, exemplifies the regime's stance against denigration of religious beliefs. Grosz fled to America following his trial, but the general sentiment in Germany was clear – blasphemy would not be tolerated. The National Socialists publicly denounced Grosz's work as a "mockery of the divine," with Hitler calling for an end to the denial of God and slander against religion.

On Nazi “Paganism”

Despite claims that the NSDAP promoted paganism, there is ample evidence to suggest otherwise. While it is true that Heinrich Himmler, the Chief of German Police, has been associated with Nordic Paganism, his own statements and writings demonstrate a different perspective. Himmler praised the Christian heritage of Germany, acknowledged a monotheistic God, and refused to blaspheme Christ.

In a statement on June 28th, 1938, Himmler explicitly forbade attacks on Christ as a person and denounced the notion that Christ was a Jew. In the SS Handbook Volume 4 - Handbook For The Ideological Education of The Troops, Himmler emphasized the importance of the people as the starting point for National Socialist teaching, recognizing the divine will to order in the visible work of the people. He opposed any form of international leveling, whether political or religious, as it went against the true law of God, which obliges individuals to use their lives in accordance with God's order. Himmler saw violations of moral principles, repentance, and obedience to the people as blasphemy.

In the SS Defender of Bolshevism, Himmler expressed admiration for ancient faith and views that may seem childish by modern standards. He encouraged men without the piety of the modern era to bow their heads to the depth and greatness of this world-view and the faith deeply rooted in God and order. Himmler also praised the brave Catholic knights of German history, highlighting their obedience, subordination, and state authority learned in the order of the Roman Catholic Church.

Himmler directly addressed the question of paganism in the SS Handbook Volume 4 - Handbook For The Ideological Education of The Troops. He criticized the opponent's accusations of religious crimes and accusations of paganism, asserting that they hypocritically described the desecration of European domes, monuments, and cultural sites as necessary for the destruction of barbarism. Himmler emphasized the unshakable belief in a just, divine order and the strength of their faith.

To gain further insight into Himmler's religious views, we can turn to his daughter Gudrun Burwitz. In a 1992 interview, she provided a transcript that aligns with Himmler's own statements.

“Interviewer: "What was your father's view regarding religion and Christianity? History tells us he was an occultist and worked to destroy the Church and persecute Christians."

Gudrun: "Wow, you certainly have read enough of the victor's version of our history. [...]

My father was religious, and raised us to be also. [...]

Every race was given a way to worship their creator, the European people found a God who worked well for us for 2 thousand years. My father's concern was that in just the last 200 years Jews have wormed their way into our religion, even to the point of working on translating parts of the Bible to suit their needs.

They were then able to convince leaders that the Bible really is about the Jew and not about Europeans; we are only secondary along with all other “gentiles”.

This made no sense to my father, as Jews have not had any of the marks of a creative, industrious people. I have met people from your country who agree that the Jews cannot be the people of the Bible, or that the Bible is only for the Jew, who denounce and hate Christ. We Europeans took his name; hence, every European nation is a Christian nation. My father did not hate the Church or persecute the Church. What he disagreed with was the Judeo influence on the Church; Germany had some sects who worshiped the Jew as the only people close to God. The SS idea was to turn our people back to their roots from where they came and away from the modern Judeo church whom was seen as a destructive Trojan horse to weaken the people, and turn them from their God. The German Christians were a good start, and my father attended many services by pastors who understood the Jewish influence on the Christian religion was not a good thing and led to false teachings. Therefore, my father respected the Church, many SS officers were Catholic, and he had no wish to anger Christians. He did however want people to see another side of the Church that was not healthy for the people."”

— Munich, 1992 with Gudrun Himmler (http://www.mourningtheancient.com/gudrun.htm)

There is limited evidence to suggest that the Thule Society, an occultist group founded in 1918, had a significant influence over the NSDAP. While it is true that some high-ranking officials of the NSDAP were associated with the Thule Society, it is important to note that the founder of the party, Sebottendorff, was expelled from Germany and the Thule Society disbanded in the mid-1920s. Sebottendorff's book, published in 1933, was banned the following year, and he was arrested. There is no concrete evidence that Hitler himself was influenced by the Thule Society, and there is a lack of evidence to suggest that high-ranking NSDAP officials were members of the Thule Society.

In Mein Kampf, Hitler denounced the use of particularly old Germanic expressions, stating that it was unvölkisch (contrary to the Volk) and represented nonsense. In a speech in September 1938, Hitler explicitly stated that the National Socialist Movement would not tolerate occult mystics in search of an afterlife, as they represented something different and had nothing to do with National Socialism. Under the Nazi regime, paganism was not accepted, and secret societies like Freemasonry were specifically targeted. Freemasonry was banned in 1934, and it is estimated that between 80,000 and 200,000 Freemasons were murdered in the Third Reich. Anti-Mason laws were passed in 1935, which also had the effect of closing down pagan societies such as the German Order of Druids and the Skald Order, which were banned for their alleged Masonic nature.

In June 1941, the Nazi security services launched a campaign against occult organizations and beliefs, aiming to eliminate them from the German national community. This campaign against occultism reveals the complexities and contradictions within the relationship between occultism and National Socialism. Considering all of this evidence, it would be inaccurate to label National Socialism as pagan. The regime actively targeted and opposed paganism, and Hitler himself denounced pagan influences.

The Accusation of a New Religion and Catholic Persecution

The claim that the Nazis rejected Christianity and sought to create a new religion is not supported by the evidence. The book Positive Christianity In The Third Reich explicitly states that the goal of National Socialism was not to create a new religion or promote godlessness. When Hitler spoke of a new National Socialist worldview, he referred to the result of national consciousness, comradeship, and the heroic attitude of the German people towards their way of life and their views of the world. This included the forces of Positive Christianity. Hitler focused on changing the cultural life of the German people and promoting a new man guided by the principles of National Socialism. The aim was to reconstruct the inner life of individuals, including their values and beliefs, to align with the ideals of National Socialism.

The 30 Point Church Plan For The National Reich Church is often attributed to Alfred Rosenberg, a Nazi ideologist. However, it should be noted that Rosenberg was not the author of this program and it was written by a random member of the NSDAP. It is important to recognize that Hitler consistently rejected anti-Christian attitudes within the party and stood firm in his support of positive Christianity. Even mainstream Anglo-Judaic media acknowledged Hitler's attitudes towards Christianity, further highlighting his rejection of anti-Christian sentiment.

The New York Times reporting on Hitler Rejecting a National Church

Hitler dismissed the anti-Christian views of individuals like Rosenberg, and there is no evidence that he read Rosenberg's book The Myth of The 20th Century.

When Hitler came to power, there were concerns among Catholics that the Church would be persecuted. However, Hitler addressed these fears, stating that he stood in debt to the Jesuits and wanted to promote Catholicism in Protestant Germany. The Nazis and the Vatican negotiated a treaty called the Concordat, which was signed in July 1933. This treaty guaranteed religious freedom for Catholics, required bishops to swear loyalty to the Reich, and prohibited clergymen from joining political parties. It established a clear separation of Church and State, with no interference from either side. As a result, there was no widespread persecution of Catholicism in Nazi Germany. Any Catholics who were jailed or executed usually did so because they violated the terms of the Concordat by involving themselves in non-religious matters. Hitler emphasized that priests should focus on their religious duties and not engage in politics.

The construction of numerous Catholic churches in Germany during this time further contradicts the notion of persecution. The growth and prosperity of Catholic orders were evident, and Catholic monks and nuns freely moved about the cities without disturbance. The reality is that those Catholics who were "persecuted" often broke the law. Hitler stated that priests involved in illegal activities would be held accountable like any other German citizen. However, he also recognized the thousands of priests who fulfilled their duties without conflict with the law and emphasized the state's duty to protect them. The National Socialist state aimed to preserve the biological health of the people while maintaining certain fundamental morals. The Catholic Church recognized the religious freedom that existed in Nazi Germany at the time. The "Munich Catholic Church Newspaper," in an article published on March 7, 1937, and republished on March 27, 1937, described the flourishing religious life in Germany, noting that the churches were crowded every Sunday.

It is important to note that the persecution of individuals in Nazi Germany was not based on their religious beliefs, but rather on their actions that violated the law. For example, the Jehovah's Witnesses, who refused to show obedience to the Reich, were declared enemies and faced persecution. The focus was on individuals who posed a threat to the state, rather than targeting Christians or Catholics specifically. The claim of widespread persecution against Christians and Catholics in Nazi Germany does not hold up when considering the evidence. In reality, the Nazi regime aimed to revive and uphold Christian traditions.

Conclusions

Adolf Hitler wrote an article in the Völkischer Beobachter on February 29, 1929. In this article, he expressed his belief that the Vatican's acceptance of Fascism demonstrated its greater trust in the new political realities compared to the previous liberal democracy. Hitler also argued that the Catholic Church's agreement with Fascist Italy provided clear evidence that Fascist ideology was more aligned with Christianity than Jewish liberalism or atheistic Marxism.

This suggests an alignment between Fascism and Christianity, citing examples beyond Italy and Germany such as the Romanian Iron Guard and the Austrian Fatherland Front. It proposes that Fascism embodies the application of Christian principles in the realm of politics. It argues that Fascism rejects what it perceives as subversive elements of Judaic and Atheistic ideologies, leading to a restoration of traditional Christian values and ways of life in countries that embraced it. A quote attributed to Goebbels emphasizes the notion that being a Christian involves loving one's neighbor, considering them a racial and blood brother, and consequently harboring animosity towards their enemies. Indeed, Fascism can be seen as a profound embodiment of the second most revered principle taught by Christ, which is to "love thy neighbor."

"I want to put an end to a mistake. During my life, I always believed very firmly in God; I never denied the Catholic religion... Nobody can say that the National Socialist State was atheist."

— Adolf Hitler, quoted in Hitler y la Iglesia J. Aguilar y J. Asensi

[Wayne Hall]

halva.proboards.com/thread/867/critique-robert-reich

[Wayne Hall]

fascio.substack.com/p/civilizational-states-self-determination?utm_source=cross-post&publication_id=676042&post_id=100155837&utm_campaign=676042&isFreemail=true&r=8t72z&utm_medium=email

[Wayne Hall]

Reflections in February

Lina Petriti, who speaks in this video, unfortunately passed away at the end of January (2024). Although the video starts in the same way as a better-known video of the Aegina Association of Active Citizens, the remainder of the video contains a few surprises. In the video she speaks warmly of the Capodistrian Cities Network being promoted by the mayor of Aegina of that time Panagiotis Koukoulis.

The video caught the attention of Finnish librarian and activist Mikail Book, who assumed that Lina was a university academic, not a lady running a lottery ticket shop. Mikail Book had, and has, a site promoting the work of Altiero Spinelli

www.kaapeli.fi/book/spinelli/

and this led to an initiative entitled Capodistrias-Spinelli-Europe.

Spinelli has been adopted as a kind of mascot by the European Union, largely because of assumed "left wing credentials". Guy Verhofstadt and Daniel Cohn-Bendit started a Spinelli Group which gained some credibility with intellectuals. But what did they do with this credibility? They lent active support to the Maidan uprising in Ukraine and to the subsequent politics of Ukraine and NATO against the Soviet Union and then against Russia.

It seems in retrospect that rather than Spinelli the openly anti-Marxist Coudenhofe-Kalergi could have been a more promising prophet of European integration. He was hounded by Hitler as much as any Marxists or Jews were.

Kalergi's mission, which was also that of Capodistrias, remains unfulfilled.

W. Hall

[Wayne Hall]

Was Adolf Hitler a Eurasianist?
by The Fascifist

fascio.substack.com/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

Jan 29

Introduction

The research by Brandon Martinez, a White Nationalist with views that align with racist, reactionary, capitalist, and liberal ideology, has prompted me to write this paper. His assertions about Hitler have been proven historically accurate, and for these findings, he deserves commendation. Martinez's work seems to have taken our previous discussions to heart, particularly a suggestion I once made about re-education for those lacking an understanding of Fascist theory, which he has evidently pursued. His Telegram channel, "Red Ideologies," is a valuable resource for understanding the similarities between Fascism and Communism and their intertwined history.

Martinez accurately points out that Hitler, like Stalin, was a socialist and both were against the liberal democratic and capitalist frameworks of the West. He describes the conflict between Marxists and Third Positionists as a socialist fraternal conflict, and suggests Hitler had Eurasianist tendencies. Moreover, he correctly identifies Hitler and Stalin as detrimental to “White people,” a term laden with complex implications that include modernism, capitalism, secular humanism, liberal democracy, Western culture, and the bourgeoisie. This term historically refers to the bourgeoisie class that overthrew European aristocracy in the 18th century, positioning themselves as anti-Aryan and maintaining their order through the exploitation of the proletariat. Brandon Martinez is a White Nationalist I highly regard, alongside Richard Spencer, for they both acknowledge truths about “White people,” albeit from a “pro-White” stance, while I approach it from an anti-White perspective. Despite our differing philosophical bases and moral compasses, we find common ground on certain facts about White people, a complex overlap that I find worthwhile to consider.

Recentering our discussion on the essence of this paper, I affirm that Adolf Hitler indeed harbored Eurasianist ambitions comparable to Napoleon Bonaparte's, from the moment he assumed power on January 30, 1933. His objective was not to achieve lasting peace with Britain and America — which he deemed impossible due to his geostrategic goals — but to gain the necessary time and resources to build a Germanic civilizational state on par with the United States in North America or Russia in Eurasia. The claim by the Americans and British that Hitler aspired to global dominance had merit; he sought to reshape the "old world" just as Napoleon had a century prior. For both leaders, the foremost adversary was Britain and her global empire. They believed that Europe's security had to be won at the cost of Anglo-American hegemony.

In this essay, I aim to demonstrate that Hitler's geopolitical desires mirrored Napoleon's, as he sought an empire robust enough to challenge Britain and the USA. I will establish Hitler's Eurasianist credentials, showing that his influences, strategies, and alliances were unmistakably aligned with this goal. The core geopolitical contention between Bonaparte, Hitler, and Stalin was the seat of power for Eurasia — Paris, Berlin, or Moscow, respectively — though their ultimate goal was identical: to erect a formidable counterbalance to London and Washington DC. While it may seem anachronistic to label Hitler and the National Socialists as followers of Duginism, given that the Russian philosopher Alexander Dugin came long after them, Martinez adeptly highlights the similarities between Dugin's contemporary Eurasianism and Hitler's strategies. Eurasianism, of course, predates both figures, but credit is due to Martinez for presenting the same insights to his audience that Zoltanous and I have shared with ours. Now, without further ado, let's dive into this intriguing subject.
Was Adolf Hitler a Civilizationist Beneath His Nationalism?

For those familiar with Zoltanous and my work, the understanding that political ideologies often clash with geopolitical ambitions will not be new. Political expediency sometimes demands actions that stray from ideological purity. When faced with such dilemmas, states may choose to honestly reconcile their ideology with their actions or craft deceptions to justify their chosen course. This dynamic highlights that ideology within statecraft can be both a strength and a weakness, and ultimately, geopolitical pragmatism must prevail, with ideology serving as a means to an end rather than the end itself. Delving into whether Adolf Hitler was a Eurasianist requires an understanding that Hitler, despite outwardly presenting as a republican and adherent to the nation-state concept, was fundamentally a civilizationist, which equates to being an advocate for an empire.

This empire is not one of commercial maritime power like Britain or America, but of a traditional land-based aristocracy akin to Russia or Rome. Being a Eurasianist is synonymous with being a civilizationist; hence, demonstrating that Hitler was a civilizationist moves us closer to determining his Eurasianist stance. Leon Degrelle's account of Hitler's unexpected answer to the question of where his homeland was — saying "Greece" instead of the anticipated "Europe" — hints at Hitler's philosophical depth. This response and further inquiries into his views suggest that Hitler had an idealistic ontology shaping his understanding of history and the evolution of social identity.

In his speech declaring war on the United States on December 11, 1941, Hitler made the following remarks:

“What is Europe, my deputies? There is no geographical definition of our continent, but only an ethnic-national and cultural one. The frontier of this continent is not the Ural mountains, but rather the line that divides the Western outlook on life from that of the East. At one time, Europe was confined to the Greek isles, which had reached even the Nordic tribes, and where the flame first burned that slowly but steadily enlightened humanity. And when these Greeks fought against the invasion of the Persian conquerors, they did not just defend their own small homeland, which was Greece, but that very concept that is now called “Europe”. And then Europe shifted from Hellas to Rome. Roman thought and Roman statecraft combined with Greek spirit and Greek culture. An empire was created, the importance and creative power of which has never been matched, much less surpassed, even to this day. And when the Roman legions defended Italy in three terrible wars against the attack of Carthage from Africa, and finally battled to victory, in this case as well Rome fought not just for herself, but for the Greco-Roman world that then encompassed Europe.

The next invasion against the home soil of this new culture of humanity came from the wide expanses of the East. A horrific storm of cultureless hordes from the center of Asia poured deep into the heart of the European continent, burning, ravaging and murdering as a true scourge of God. On the Catalaunian fields , Roman and Germanic men fought together for the first time (in 451) in a decisive battle of tremendous importance for a culture that had begun with the Greeks, passed on to the Romans, and then encompassed the Germanic peoples.”

— Adolf Hitler's speech on December 11, 1941

From the content of his war declaration speech, we can confidently infer that Hitler held a civilizationist perspective on social identity, evident beyond his articulated nationalism. He seemed to embody a vision that surpassed the narrow confines of rigid nationalism. Hitler's determination to unify the disparate regions of Germany under the banner of "Ein Volk. Ein Reich. Ein Führer" — translated as "one people, one empire, one leader" — suggests that his imperial ambitions were not limited to Germany alone. It is logical, then, that he would seek to extend his empire to encompass additional peoples and territories essential for securing vital resources, thereby fortifying his land power against the pressing threats posed by Britain and America.

At this juncture, one might interject, proposing that the exigencies of a global conflict drove Hitler's territorial and resource acquisitions, and that he did not initially aspire to elevate Germany to the status of a civilization state and empire on par with Britain, France, Russia, and America. Yet, this argument is effectively dismissed by examining his own words at the conclusion of chapter 13 and the onset of chapter 14 in Mein Kampf:

“We National Socialists must go still further: The right to land and soil becomes a duty when a great nation seems destined to go under, unless its land is extended... Germany will either be a world power, or not at all. But in order to become a world power, it needs that size which gives it the necessary importance today, and gives life to its citizens.”

“Therefore we National Socialists have purposely drawn a line through our pre-war conduct of foreign policy. We resume where we left off, six centuries ago. We put an end to the perpetual Germanic march towards the south and west of Europe, and turn our eyes towards the land of the East. We finally shut off the colonial – and trade-policy of pre-war times, and pass over to the land-policy of the future. But when we speak of new land and soil in Europe today, we must principally think of Russia and its subject border states.”

“Our task, and the mission of the National Socialist movement, is to develop the political insight in our people that will enable them to realize that their future aim is not the fulfillment of some new and wildly adventurous March of Alexander, but rather as the industrious labor of the German plow, for which the sword will provide the soil.”

— Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

These excerpts from Hitler's speeches and writings make it clear that he envisioned Germany as a civilization state — an entity that must rise to the status of a great land power or cease to exist. This decisive stance stemmed from his historical analysis, which posited that great powers, notably the British Empire, would never allow Germany's peaceful ascendance. Hitler believed that Germany had to become a power equal to or greater than Britain or suffer the consequences of inferiority. His geopolitical drive was fueled by the perpetual threat he perceived from Britain, echoing the earlier geopolitical challenges faced by Napoleon Bonaparte, whose strategic legacy profoundly influenced Hitler.

The intellectual contribution of Carl Schmitt, a jurist and political philosopher of the Third Reich, to Hitler's geopolitical vision is a subject of debate. Some argue that Hitler drew inspiration from Schmitt's concept of "large spaces" for geopolitical organization, while others suggest Schmitt refined ideas originating from Hitler. Nonetheless, it is clear that the American doctrine of "Manifest Destiny" had a notable impact on the German concept of "Lebensraum" (living space). Furthermore, it can be argued that geopolitically, Hitler sought to realize a vision akin to that proposed by Count Coudenhove Kalergi in his Pan-European manifesto, subsequently echoed by Pierre Drieu La Rochelle in Fascist Socialism, and Sir Oswald Mosley's Europe a Nation. These ideas collectively influenced the eventual formation of the European Union (EU), which represents a warped culmination of these thinkers' ideas. The current structure of the EU is quite centralized, and there is an argument to be made that without the liberal democratic constraints imposed by the Globalist American Empire, the EU could achieve the vision promoted by Hitler, Coudenhove Kalergi, La Rochelle, or Mosley — a vision of a unified, sovereign civilization-state with Germany at its core. In World War II, the parallel between Germany's geopolitical aims and those of Napoleonic France became evident. The German military campaigns extended into North Africa, the Middle East, and aspirations even stretched towards India, aiming to displace British influence from the region.

An example of a potential multipolar world order had the Axis Powers won the World War 2

Who was Karl Haushofer and how did he influence Adolf Hitler?

Karl Ernst Haushofer, born on August 27, 1869, and passing on March 10, 1946, was a towering figure in German history, serving as a general, professor, geographer, and diplomat. His work on "Geopolitik" significantly influenced the political philosophy of Adolf Hitler. Rudolf Hess, who was also under Haushofer's tutelage, joined Hitler in imprisonment following the failed Beer Hall Putsch. During their time at Landsberg prison, Haushofer visited to provide education and guidance to both Hess and Hitler. Additionally, Haushofer is credited with introducing the term "Lebensraum" for political purposes, a concept that Hitler would later integrate prominently into his political discourse.

From left to right: Adjutant of Alfred Hess Leitgen, Professor Karl Haushofer, Chief Medical Director Dr. Gerhard Wagner, Rudolf Hess and the German ambassador to Sweden, the Prince of Wied

The Haushofer family was recognized for their contributions to art and academia. Karl Ernst Haushofer, born in Munich, was the son of Max Haushofer, a distinguished economics professor, politician, and author of scholarly and literary works. In 1887, Karl Haushofer joined the Bavarian Army's 1st Field Artillery regiment "Prinzregent Luitpold" and completed his military education at the Bavarian War School, Artillery School, and War Academy.

In November 1908, he received orders to proceed to Tokyo as a military attaché to observe the Imperial Japanese Army and to offer artillery instruction as a military advisor. Accompanied by his wife, he journeyed through India and Southeast Asia, arriving in February 1909. There, he was welcomed by Emperor Meiji and established connections with influential figures in Japanese politics and military circles. During the fall of 1909, Haushofer and his wife spent a month in Korea and Manchuria, coinciding with the construction of a railway. They returned to Germany in June 1910 via Russia, arriving a month later. Not long after his return to Bavaria, Haushofer began to experience severe respiratory illness, leading to a three-year leave from military service. His time in Imperial Japan profoundly impacted him and would influence his geopolitical perspective for the rest of his life.

Russian philosopher Alexander Dugin has commented on this aspect of Haushofer's life, noting:

“In Japan, Haushofer saw the clearest example of a traditional society that fully preserved the hierarchy, the military samurai caste system, the values of loyalty and honor, contempt for death and the duty of sacrifice for the sake of the nation – which was seen as something far superior to the individual – as a special spatial ethnic organism, incomparably superior to any concept of an individual.”

— Alexander Dugin

Haushofer remarked in his own words the following about Japan:

“Japan, the land of the rising sun, the world of Tradition, the cult of ancestors, the cult of the elements - the Sun, the Moon, Water, mountains, streams, groves. The unique etiquette of the samurai. A warlike and heroic nation, mobilized for a common and total service to the highest solar ideal. All this contrasted sharply with what we see in our homeland, in Germany and in Europe as a whole. Cosmopolitan cities, selfishness, capitalism, the market, venality, oblivion of higher ideals. But at the same time, how close is Japan to the romantic soul of a German patriot, in love with German myths and legends, full of nostalgia for that golden feudal age, when Tradition flourished on the European continent — the age of Knights, Holy Empires and Magical Kings.”

— Karl Haushofer

Alexander Dugin further states this about Haushofer:

“Haushofer's main orientations crystallize precisely in Japan. It is here that the intellectual formation of the one who will soon become the greatest geopolitician of the twentieth century takes place. In Tokyo, Karl Haushofer receives his initiation. He becomes a member of the mysterious Japanese Order of the ‘Green Dragon’, about which so many incredible legends will be spread in the occult circles of the West. The dragon is a symbol, Rene Guenon, undoubtedly the highest authority on the symbolism of the Tradition, emphasizes that in the Far Eastern Tradition, the symbol of the dragon represents ‘Heavenly Logos’, that is, the highest spiritual and therefore purely positive instance of religious cosmology.”

— Alexander Dugin

During his period of recovery between 1911 and 1913, Haushofer pursued and completed his PhD in philosophy at Munich University, with a dissertation on Japan titled Dai Nihon: Betrachtungen über Groß-Japans Wehrkraft, Weltstellung und Zukunft (Reflections on Greater Japan's Military Strength, World Position, and Future). His expertise in Far Eastern affairs was well-regarded in Germany, and he went on to co-found the geopolitical journal Zeitschrift für Geopolitik (Magazine for Geopolitics), serving as its co-editor until publication ceased near the end of World War II. Once his health improved, Haushofer resumed his military career with Imperial Germany and took up a position teaching War History at the Military Academy in Munich. Haushofer led a brigade on the Western Front during World War I. However, he grew disenchanted with Germany's state of preparedness for war. The entry of the United States into the conflict intensified his animosity towards Americans, whom he described in harsh and derogatory terms, indicating a profound and instinctive disdain.

Haushofer's Anti-American sentiment was entwined with Anti-Semitism, a common pairing in Germany at the time. Despite being married to Martha, a woman of Jewish descent, he expressed virulently anti-Semitic views in his correspondence, accusing Jews of disloyalty and war profiteering. Haushofer believed that Germany's redemption required a strong and magnetic leader, and he expressed his readiness to support a "Caesar" figure who could utilize his capabilities. Following his retirement from the army with the rank of Major General in 1919, Haushofer developed a significant relationship with Rudolf Hess, who worked as his research assistant. Hess would later ascend to a prominent position within the Nazi party, becoming Hitler's deputy. Haushofer's influence on Hess — and through him, on Nazi ideology — would leave an indelible mark on German history.

Karl Haushofer on the left and Rudolf Hess on the right

In 1919, Karl Haushofer completed his second doctoral thesis and began teaching as a private lecturer for political geography at the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich. By 1933, he was appointed a professor, although he declined a formal appointment and salary to avoid affecting his military pension. Haushofer's academic pursuits were driven by a desire to help Germany recover and strengthen itself. He attributed Germany's World War I defeat in part to inadequate geographical and geopolitical insight, which resulted in unfavorable alliances. He pioneered "Geopolitik," an interdisciplinary approach that wove together geography, history, economics, demography, political science, and anthropology. Haushofer's work emphasized the concept of the state as an organism shaped by geography and history, leading to his introduction of the term "Lebensraum,” which became central to Hitler's expansionist aims.

Following Hitler's imprisonment due to the unsuccessful "Beer Hall Putsch" in 1923, Haushofer began mentoring both Hitler and his devoted follower, Rudolf Hess, while they were incarcerated at Landsberg Prison. Dedicating himself to their tutelage, Haushofer made regular visits to provide in-depth political and philosophical education, which Hitler absorbed eagerly. Every Wednesday for several months in 1924, Haushofer traveled from Munich to Landsberg to engage with his "young eagles," Hess and Hitler, offering detailed guidance that would influence the future direction of National Socialism. His reputation as a respected general and academic lent significant weight to his teachings.

From 1925 to 1931 and again from 1933 to 1939, Haushofer was a familiar voice on German radio, providing monthly broadcasts on the global political climate. This exposure made him well-known beyond academic circles. As a founding member and president (1934-1937) of the Deutsche Akademie, he was a prolific author on various subjects, especially Asia, and provided Nazi leaders and German military officials with his writings. Even after the Nazis came to power, Haushofer maintained his relationship with Hess. Preceding World War II, he played a key role in fostering the alliance between Japan and the Axis powers, aligning with the ideas presented in his influential book Geopolitics of The Pacific Ocean.

“Karl Haushofer closely associates with the Japanese samurai elite. He discusses the secret of the origin of samurai traditions, learns about the strange proximity of ancient Japanese symbols with the runic signs of the European North, Haushofer's homeland. Gradually, before his eyes, a whole picture of the ancient unity is built, some kind of forgotten civilization of heroes and warriors, uniting the expanses of Eurasia in a single spiritual political synthesis. This is how Haushofer laid the foundations for what would later become his life's work. The theory of the geopolitical unification of Eurasia into a continental bloc — from the Azores to Tokyo.”

— Alexander Dugin

Karl Haushofer was a staunch proponent of Eurasianism, espousing the geopolitical imperative for an alliance between Germany, Japan, and the lands that lay between them. He was, in many ways, Germany's counterpart to the British geographer Halford Mackinder, yet their ideologies diverged sharply. While Mackinder, a liberal thinker, viewed Asia as a threat to what he termed "English Freedom," Haushofer, with his anti-liberal traditionalist views, saw Asia as the cradle and source of "German Folkism." Whereas Mackinder advocated for Britain to disrupt and dominate Europe as a safeguard against Eastern powers, Haushofer advocated for Germany to unite Europe and advance eastward to defend against Western aggression. This ideological conflict can be framed within the broader context of "Atlanticism vs Eurasianism," where the liberal maritime powers aim to manipulate Europe to gain control over Eurasia, while the illiberal continental powers seek to fortify Europe against the encroachments of "Atlantis" (Britain and America). Europe thus becomes the key strategic theater in the struggle between the progressive, White supremacist West and the traditional, Aryan-influenced East.

On May 29, 1937, during the Spanish Civil War, a duo of Tupolev SB bombers from the Soviet-backed Spanish Republican Air Force attacked Nationalist airfields and the port of Ibiza in the Mediterranean. Launching from Los Alcázares airbase near Cartagena, the bombers mistakenly targeted the German heavy cruiser Deutschland, which was stationed offshore as part of an International Non-Intervention Committee patrol, believing it to be the Nationalist cruiser Canarias. Pilots Captain Anton Progrorin and Lieutenant Vassily Schmidt executed the bombing, resulting in severe damage, the deaths of 31 sailors, and injuries to 74 others. This event became known as the Deutschland Incident. In a communication with Rudolf Hess, Haushofer's son, Albrecht, shared his thoughts on this incident:

"One cannot avoid the conclusion that they (the British) regard neither Italy nor Japan (nor even the Soviet Union) as public enemy number one. They are once again glaring across the North Sea - at Germany."

— David Irving, Hess: The Missing Years 1941-1945

This could be the very reason why a lasting peace with Britain was unachievable, necessitating a conflict of survival between the Western-minded White English and the Eastern-oriented Aryans.

“Hess immediately asked about the possibilities of conveying the Führer's sincere wish for peace to leading British personages. 'It's clear that, if the war goes on, they will be committing suicide ... The Führer neither has nor had any desire to destroy the British empire. Is there anybody in Britain ready to talk peace?’ Haushofer used blunt language in his reply: ‘it was not just the Jews and Freemasons but virtually every Englishman who regarded any treaty signed by Hitler as worthless’. ‘Why?' asked Hess, genuinely puzzled. Haushofer pointed to the broken treaties that littered the last decade. 'In the English speaking world, the Führer is regarded as the devil's deputy on earth.’ When he added that the British would rather convey their empire piecemeal to the Americans than allow Germany to dominate Europe, Hess heatedly asked why. The diplomat pointed out that Churchill himself, being of half-American blood, (like several members of his Cabinet), would have few qualms in that respect. Reverting to Hess's original question, he said, 'My view is that the British who have property they stand to lose, that is the more calculating elements of the plutocracy, are those likely to talk about peace, but even these will only regard peace as a temporary truce.' To this Hess responded, 'Do you think our feelers haven't been getting through to them — that we have been using the wrong language?' It was obvious that he was referring to Ribbentrop (who wanted to instead ally with the Soviets and maintain a friendship with Stalin).”

— David Irving, Hess: The Missing Years 1941-1945

Hitler subscribed to Eurasianist ideas, and National Socialism was his way of actualizing a geopolitical countermeasure against the modern, Western-influenced world led by Britain and America. Haushofer envisioned liberating the "three great future peoples" — the Germans, Russians, and Japanese — from the chokehold prepared by Anglo-Saxon powers. He believed that the vigor of the "Russian bear" ought to be directed southward towards India, without encroaching upon German territories in the West or Japanese domains in the East. To Haushofer, the pervasive "dollar imperialism" represented the foremost external adversary ever since Germany's humiliation at Versailles. Despite his mixed feelings about the Bolshevik regime in Moscow — rejecting its methods but acknowledging its role in freeing Russia and potentially other nations from the "enslavement of banks and capital" — Haushofer's geopolitical vision was clear.

“The day the Germans, Japanese and Russians unite will be the last day of Anglo-Saxon hegemony.”

— Karl Haushofer

Reflecting on these insights leads to the undeniable conclusion that Adolf Hitler was a Eurasianist profoundly shaped by his geopolitical mentor, Karl Haushofer. It becomes evident that National Socialism was an ideology with an "Eastern worldview," though cloaked in the guise of Western modernism and terminology, yet fundamentally traditional and anti-Western at its core. The Germans perceived in the Japanese not merely a strategic ally, but a kindred spirit bound by a common fate — a connection rooted in the spiritual and volitional dimensions, contrasting sharply with the foreign nature of Britain and America. The foundational principle of the National Socialist ideology — blood and soil — ties Europe, Eurasia, and Asia together through a shared land that molds the character of its peoples. It is Britain and America, separated by the English Channel and the Atlantic Ocean, whose maritime spirits starkly oppose those of the East. Haushofer contended that it is not Eurasia that threatens Europe but Atlantis, and for Europe to defend itself effectively, the Eurasianist vision must be realized. Hitler acknowledged this imperative, becoming the executor of Haushofer's geopolitical strategies.

Omar Amine, who previously went by the name Claudio Mutti, is an Italian philosopher with Nazi-Maoist leanings, a political analyst, and an associate of Franco Freda and Alexander Dugin. He posits that German geopolitical goals must disavow the "White race," which he categorizes as English, American, and Jewish, labeling it as antithetical to National Socialism.

He asserts:

"Not only 'anti-Semites' like Wagner and Chamberlain but also Jews like Weininger noted the relationship between the English type and the Jewish type if we are to judge by the 'origin myth' that affirms that they are both the descendants of the Israelites. It would be better to abandon the unrealistic views of those—within National-Socialism—who are filled with illusions of gaining England to their own side (a nation indisputably of the 'white race'—but the Jews and the Yankees are as well!) to the benefit of German geopolitical projects."

— Omar Amine quoted in The Disintegration of The System by Franco Freda

Lastly, I suggest watching the accompanying video to gain a deeper comprehension of the topics discussed here.

On Haushofer views and how it relates to Dugin

[Wayne Hall]

fascio.substack.com/p/civilizational-states-self-determination?utm_campaign=email-post&r=8t72z&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

Civilizational-States: Self-Determination of The Peoples?
by Zoltanous
FEB 2, 2024

Introduction
In the current epoch, numerous self-proclaimed nationalists are oblivious to the fact that their ideology is steeped in the liberal tradition, thus failing to achieve their purported goals. They often misconceive "Globalism" as merely a synonym for "world governance," while holding the belief that their liberal version of "nationalism" is the antidote. It is critical to recognize that "Globalism" represents a secular, liberal order, with the Atlanticist West at its helm, principally administered by the liberal democracies, with Washington D.C. as the epicenter of this American-centric empire. The concept of "Nationalism" is frequently invoked without a true grasp of its historical roots. Born out of the 18th century, nationalism was initially a tool of the Jacobin revolutionaries designed to dismantle the old-world order of medieval Europe. It is intrinsically tied to the emergence of the bourgeois "Nation-State," which rose to prominence post the Treaty of Westphalia. Though later eras saw "Nationalism" being co-opted by staunch anti-liberals, it is imperative to acknowledge that its inception served the advancement of liberal and secular humanist agendas.

The Jacobin version of nationalism was an early harbinger of globalism. Those who stand against globalism today cannot effectively do so from a traditional nationalist perspective. They must re-evaluate their perspective and cultivate a reformed sense of nationalism, one that has shed the liberal creeds of "absolute national sovereignty.” Realizing these subtleties points to a path of resistance that diverges from the nation-state construct, instead gravitating towards the Aristocratic Civilization-State paradigm. This approach entails the synthesis of the proletariat into "Aristo-Proletarianism." Such a philosophy should be the guiding force behind authentic anti-liberal nationalisms and internationalisms, driving towards a harmonious multipolarity characterized by a tapestry of Civilization-States, each upholding and reinforcing the identities and sovereignties of communities that stand against the tide of modern globalism.

Why The Civilizational Model?
In his 1915 pamphlet titled The Revolutionary Proletariat and The Right of Nations to Self-Determination, Vladimir Lenin eloquently portrayed the circumstances prevailing in Russia during the 19th and early 20th centuries: “Russia is a prison of peoples.” Throughout this period, Russian civilization extended beyond its traditional borders, incorporating diverse peoples through military conquest, resulting in the formation of one of history's largest empires. However, it's crucial to note that within the Russian Empire at the turn of the 20th century, none of these peoples possessed inherent sovereignty or political rights. Lenin acknowledged the importance of this issue and articulated it in his writings. He recognized the imperative for the revolutionary proletariat to advocate for the right of nations to self-determination. This principle underscores that each nation, irrespective of its size, holds the inherent right to determine its political destiny and exercise sovereignty over its affairs. Lenin's acknowledgment of this right demonstrates his understanding of the diverse ethnic and cultural mosaic within the Russian Empire. His call for the empowerment of these nations to shape their futures stands as a testament to his progressive and inclusive vision.

Lenin asserted that for the Russian working class to lead a successful democratic revolution and to join European workers in a socialist revolution, it must unequivocally support the right of all nations oppressed by Tsarist rule to separate and become independent from Russia. Manifesting an unwavering allegiance to his ideological convictions, Lenin transformed his theoretical constructs into tangible reality. On the 15th of November in the year 1917, the nascent Russian-Soviet authority promulgated a seminal manifesto, The Declaration of The Rights of The Peoples of Russia, a document that crystallized pivotal tenets that would undergird the regime's approach to governance. This declaration was not a mere formalistic gesture; it was a doctrinal compass comprising critical axioms designed to steer the government's course of action. These axioms were not only declarations but were also intended to be the bedrock upon which the Soviet government would erect its policy framework, sculpting the political landscape of the new Russia and its relationship with the mosaic of ethnicities within its orbit.

Its primary essence can be encapsulated as follows:

Equality and sovereignty for all Russian peoples.

Right to self-determination and secession for Russian peoples.

Elimination of national and religious privileges and restrictions.

Free development for national minorities and ethnographic groups in Russia.

Complete integration and assimilation of all Russian peoples into the Soviet System.

In the intricate geopolitical tapestry that unfolded following the ascent of Soviet power, it is imperative to recognize the nuanced historical moment when a constellation of nations, among them Latvia and Ukraine, chose to detach themselves from the Soviet matrix and forge their own separate, non-Soviet polities. These emergent states encountered tribulations from without and within, as ideological schisms gave rise to internal factions that echoed the Soviet narrative, thereby challenging the very essence of their nascent sovereignty.

To the cursory observer, these incursions might be construed as a paradoxical maneuver by the Leninist regime, belying its own principles. Yet, to truly penetrate the depths of such a historical conundrum, one must engage with further segments of Lenin's 1915 discourse, seeking therein the submerged strata of his ideological stance. Only through such a comprehensive hermeneutic effort can one access the profound undercurrents that informed and justified the Soviet posture vis-à-vis these fledgling republics, as they stood at the crossroads of self-determination and the overarching Soviet vision for a new world order.

“This we demand, not independently of our revolutionary struggle for socialism, but because this struggle will remain a hollow phrase if it is not linked up with a revolutionary approach to all questions of democracy, including the national question. We demand freedom of self-determination, i.e., independence, i.e., freedom of secession for the oppressed nations, not because we have dreamt of splitting up the country economically, or of the ideal of small states, but, on the contrary, because we want large states and the closer unity and even fusion of nations, only on a truly democratic, truly internationalist basis, which is inconceivable without the freedom to secede.”

— Vladimir Lenin, Lenin Collected Works

Within the vast expanse of the Russian Federation, a tapestry of ethnicities and national identities weaves together, distinct from the ethnic Russian majority. These diverse groups, often known as "non-Russian peoples," possess unique linguistic, cultural, and historical identities. As the inheritor of the Soviet Union's legacy, the Russian Federation acknowledges the existence of these nationalities and has enacted measures to safeguard and nurture their distinct cultural identities and self-governance.

The Federation's structure accommodates autonomous republics, regions, and districts, each home to specific ethnic communities. These areas are granted a spectrum of autonomy, enabling them to uphold their native languages in official capacities and to perpetuate their cultural legacies. Moreover, the Russian Federation has instituted policies aimed at bolstering economic growth and social welfare within these territories, striving to rectify historical disparities and to enhance the quality of life for all inhabitants, irrespective of ethnicity. One must recognize the complexities the Russian Federation faces as a multi-ethnic state in honoring the rights and ambitions of its varied ethnic groups. The endeavor to sustain cohesion and stability, while also validating the rights of different nationalities, necessitates persistent dialogue, collaboration, and inclusive governance. The Russian authorities persist in their pursuit of a cohesive society that cherishes and defends the interests of all its constituents, including the non-Russian ethnic groups.

The Soviet paradigm of ethnic republics endures within the contemporary framework of the Russian Federation, which comprises eighty-five federal subjects, including twenty-two republics such as Dagestan, Chechnya, and Bashkortostan. Moreover, nations like Belarus, Armenia, and Kazakhstan, though not formally acknowledged as sovereign states, are intricately woven into the Eurasian Economic Union. The Russian Federation, an amalgam of states with Russia at its nucleus, serves as an exemplary model of self-determination for peoples, emancipated from the rigid confines imposed by 20th-century Marxist and Nationalist ideologies.


A map of the Russian Federation’s semi-autonomous republics

Martin Jacques, a distinguished British journalist with a deep understanding of China, has been influential in defining the concept of the "civilization state." In his book When China Rules The World, he contrasts China's short history as a nation state of roughly 150 years with its ancient civilization stretching back millennia. Jacques highlights the civilizational state is marked by entrenched cultural norms such as Confucian values and the intricate relationship between the written and spoken Chinese language. In the eyes of the Chinese, "China" evokes their civilization, with its ancient dynasties and philosophical roots, rather than a simple political entity. Jacques' notion is reinforced by Vladimir Lapkin, who reflects on non-Western civilizations' response to Western universalism by harnessing their indigenous cultural assets.

Jacques further distinguishes China as a unique civilization state, featuring a continuous identity that is not mirrored by other historical civilization states such as India, and certainly distinct from the relatively recent civilization legacy of the United States. Challenging Western perceptions, Jacques questions the idea of China as a highly centralized state, instead proposing that due to its size and complexity, governance has always required a more adaptive approach, a sentiment mirrored in Russia's federated system. Jacques posits that while some countries clearly fit the mold of nation states, others, like China, embody characteristics of both nation states and civilization states. This view is encapsulated in Lucian Pye's assertion that China is a "civilization pretending to be a nation-state," with the implication that some civilization states may not primarily identify as nation-states.

Building on Jacques’ arguments, the ancient Chinese concept of Tianxia, or "all under heaven," has historically positioned China as a central force in the world, suggesting a blend of divine and earthly governance. This historical perspective is not just a relic of the past but is also reflected in modern initiatives such as the Belt and Road Initiative, which echoes the Tianxia principle of a China-centric global order. China's commitment to this civilizational heritage is also evident in its approach to internet governance, where it enforces cyber sovereignty and controls its digital borders to protect its cultural identity. This focus on cultural continuity is a testament to China's dedication to sustaining its civilizational ethos. Through these actions, China demonstrates how its ancient philosophies continue to inform and guide its engagement with the world today, underscoring the lasting impact of the civilization state concept.

The Civilization-State interacts with the world yet eschews any reliance; it asserts its self-reliance, sovereignty, and autarky. It transcends the limited frameworks of space and time as understood by modernist statecraft, instead emerging as a living, breathing organism that is unbounded by the constraints of temporality and spatiality. It adapts to the exigencies of existence while steadfastly preserving its ontological core and wholeness. Within the philosophical framework of the Civilization-State, the conventional measures of time and space are considered to be secondary, as they fail to encompass the true depth of a civilization's being and substance. The Civilization-State is predicated on the notion of an everlasting now, a perpetual moment of existence that defies the linear construct of time, where divisions are seen as ephemeral and deceptive, a play of temporal shadows. In this worldview, the rigid concepts and orthodoxies of universal rights are obsolete; rather, it is the principle of personalism that arises as an intrinsic imperative. The legalistic and progressive ideals that are foundational to the modern Nation-State concede to a higher regard for virtue ethics and the philosophy of perennialism. This profound divergence delineates the intrinsic cultural contrasts between the Civilization-State and the modern Nation-State, revealing their fundamental disparities in spiritual, psychological, sociological, economic, and ecological dimensions.

While the legacy of Soviet Russia did not persist into the 21st century, the model of the Civilization-State remains a source of profound insights for today's global landscape, particularly for the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China. These nations epitomize the Civilization-State, repudiating both conventional Nationalism and Globalism. Their capacity to counter the Atlanticist dominance stems from their rejection of liberal doctrines that leave them vulnerable to external manipulation. The liberal factions in the West frequently call for a "decolonization of Russia" and lend support to anti-Russian nationalist movements under the guise of "self-determination." This is evident in their backing of "Ukrainian Nationalism" when it serves to weaken the Russian Federation. Similarly, they employ divisive strategies against China through rallying cries of "Taiwanese Nationalism" and the "defense of Human Rights in Hong Kong."

Consider the potential uproar if Russia and China were to openly support and encourage secessionist movements like "Southern Dixie independence" within the United States. It is questionable whether the same liberal proponents of "Ukrainian self-determination" or "Taiwanese self-determination" would embrace the idea of a "Southern right to self-determination." These scenarios lay bare the novel geopolitical complexities of the 21st century that demand thorough scrutiny and strategic thought. To effectively oppose Globalism, one cannot rely on any strain of liberal nationalism or internationalism. Battling Globalism requires a commitment to authentically anti-liberal forms of nationalism and internationalism. The old dialectic of nationalism versus internationalism has withered, giving way to a new dynamic: Globalism against Civilizationism. Within this fresh paradigm, various expressions of nationalism and internationalism can coexist, yet they are distinguished by their liberal or anti-liberal character. Globalism is the banner under which liberal nationalism and internationalism unite, whereas Civilizationism is the domain of anti-liberal nationalism and internationalism. This distinction is set to shape the geopolitical narrative of the 21st century and potentially beyond.

Both Russia and China are intrinsically diverse entities. Vladimir Putin, in acknowledging the inherent plurality within Russia, emphasizes the value of every ethnic community. Nevertheless, radical segments of Russian nationalism threaten this mosaic, promoting an exclusionary "Russia for Russians" stance that seeks to destabilize the cohesion that Putin has assiduously cultivated. Likewise, China esteems the multitude of ethnicities within its borders, valuing their unique cultural, customary, traditional, and religious contributions. While protecting their rights, China expects allegiance to the national collective, precluding external influences from disrupting its unity. The kinship between Russia and China is partly rooted in their mutual respect for internal diversity. As Americans, we would do well to heed Putin's counsel on the importance of fostering unity through diversity. His insights remind us that the embrace of diverse identities is fundamental to the prosperity and harmony of any Civilization-State.

“Caveman nationalism, with the slogan ‘Russia is only for Russians,’ only harms Russians, only harms Russia, we shouldn't allow this to happen. Of course, we must make sure that the culture of every nation, its history, and roots of every nation is respected and honored in our country.”

— Vladimir Putin quoted in Putin Slams Caveman Nationalism by Russia Today

The formation of American identity can be likened to a tapestry woven from diverse cultural, ethnic, and racial threads, echoing the nature of Russian self-perception. Both have developed as Civilization-States, with identities that transcend simple racial or ethnic classifications. Historically, empires have expanded their cultural majorities by assimilating new members into their societies. The Roman Empire, for instance, was notable for its ability to incorporate conquered peoples, granting them avenues to Roman citizenship, which in turn enriched the empire's cultural fabric. The Chinese model of identity, with the Emperor presiding over a Confucian-structured society, also exemplified a broad and inclusive sense of belonging, demanding loyalty above all.

India stands as a quintessential example of a Civilization-State, and it continues to hold the promise of becoming a formidable presence in global affairs. The Islamic world, stretching from Indonesia to Morocco, embodies a vast civilization, but its division into various nation-states and cultural niches complicates the prospect of political unification. Although Islamic civilization has given rise to numerous civilization-states throughout history — including the successive Caliphates, segments of Genghis Khan's empire, the Safavid Empire, the Mughal Empire, and the Ottoman Empire — the legacy of these entities' boundaries persists, and their potential unification faces considerable obstacles. Similarly, the macro-civilizations of Latin America and Africa are also dispersed, but the emerging multipolar world will foster unity within these regions.

In America, national identity has continued to evolve inclusively, even in the wake of conflicts such as the Mexican-American War and those involving Native American nations. The Hispanic population has become an integral part of the American fabric, while Native Americans have adopted a strong sense of American nationalism despite historical hardships. Civilizations have an inherent drive to expand, consolidating a shared identity that propels them toward territorial growth, motivated by resource acquisition, prestige, or both. The Romans, drawing from Greek and Italic influences, sought empire for reasons that spanned strategy to culture. Commentators such as J. Hector St. John de Crèvecœur and Alexis de Tocqueville have remarked on America's distinctive synthesis of African and European lineages, giving rise to an archetype characterized by unceasing progress and achievement.

African American culture has left indelible marks on the United States, influencing everything from language and architecture to religious practices and critical agricultural innovations. The cultural resilience and contributions of African Americans resonate through American music, food, and more, indicating their central role in the nation's development. The American identity, a mosaic of cultural assimilation, is vividly represented by immigrants. Their perseverance in the face of adversity, often working tirelessly for modest pay, reflects an embodiment of the American ethos that can surpass even that of native-born citizens. Their commitment to the country's progress aligns with the Protestant work ethic, considered a foundational American principle. Thus, the essence of America lies in its people, manifesting the idea that the American identity can be adopted and expressed through a commitment to the collective progress of the nation.

The impact of geography on civilization is profound. While the phrase "geography is destiny" may oversimplify the matter, the role of geographical factors in shaping societies is crucial, as explored by Vidal de la Blanche and in German geopolitics, and remains relevant today. Russia's development, influenced by its Turkic and Slavic roots, is a case in point. Its vast landmass is strategic for regional influence but not for naval power, often affecting neighboring areas, an idea echoed in Dugin's vision of an Imperial Russia. America's geography positions it for leadership on both regional and global stages. Its coasts open it to trade with Europe and Asia, and its natural resources and fertile land support growth with minimal reliance on man-made infrastructure. The Mississippi River system enhances domestic trade and unity, reinforcing the strategic advantages of geography described by Mahan. With its potential for prosperity even in isolation, America has a unique imperial capacity, immune to invasion and nimble in global affairs, perhaps promising a longevity of influence beyond that of the British Empire.

Americans skeptical of Globalism must realize that renewal lies in a return to foundational values and traditions, not in liberalism's promises or secular humanism. As the liberal order wanes, they must be ready to forge a new societal framework. The examples set by Russia, China, and the former Soviet Union offer guidance. To counter the perils of Globalism and misplaced faith in reason, which has fostered nationalism, Americans must envisage a Civilization-State that harmonizes its multicultural fabric within a multipolar world order. Learning from the self-reliance of the Soviet past, the Russian Federation, and China's rise, America can move towards a future where identity and sovereignty thrive amidst the complexities of globalization and the rise of transnational powers. This vision requires a historic pivot to a world where diverse Civilization-States coexist peacefully, ensuring internal harmony and standing firm against the challenges of our time.

Civilizations are elevated to their esteemed positions by those outstanding individuals often referred to as "the unique ones." These are the people who personify the core values of their nation while leveraging the distinct historical and situational advantages available to them, usually catalyzing the advancement and progression of their civilizations. This group of exceptional individuals — the Natural Aristocracy — encompasses not just the conventional leaders and policymakers but also extends to cultural innovators like artists, poets, musicians, entrepreneurs, or even distinguished members of the labor force. The legacy of Greek civilization, for instance, includes the conquests of Alexander the Great across vast territories as well as the intellectual contributions from the likes of poet Homer, mathematician Pythagoras, and philosopher Plato. France's historical narrative is marked by the strategic prowess of Napoleon Bonaparte, while Germany's cultural heritage boasts of creative geniuses such as the composer Mozart, the socio-economic theorist Karl Marx, and the profound philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. The presence of a Natural Aristocracy is a global phenomenon, yet the attainment of civilizational prominence is contingent upon effectively mastering their environment.

In America, Abraham Lincoln stands as a paragon of the Natural Aristocracy. Rising from humble beginnings to the presidency, Lincoln faced the formidable challenge of a nation fracturing to protect an outdated social hierarchy. Despite early military setbacks under the shrewd command of Confederate generals, Lincoln's strategic ingenuity and his ability to morally galvanize the populace through the Emancipation Proclamation were pivotal in dismantling the rebellious South and achieving national unity. Without these efforts, the United States' current status as a dominant global force might not have materialized. America's contribution to the Natural Aristocracy is further enriched by literary talents such as Edgar Allan Poe and H. P. Lovecraft; poets like Walt Whitman and Robert Frost; legendary musicians Elvis Presley and Louis Armstrong; and visionary film directors including Orson Welles and George Lucas. The argument stands that America's civilizational identity is propelled by its extensive Natural Aristocracy. This aristocratic inclusivity is a core strength of the American civilization.

For this reason, America's distinct identity as a Civilization-State is akin to those of India, Russia, China, Rome, and the Islamic world. America's identity has risen to the stature of a "civilization" by daringly expanding its influence and nurturing a diverse Natural Aristocracy that has enhanced both its territory and society. To achieve true unity and secure a leading role in the global hierarchy, American citizens must recognize and embrace their nation's civilizational status. This is essential not only for internal cohesion but also for prevailing in the geopolitical arena, where borders and conflicting ambitions remain a reality. It is in the American people's objective self-interest to strive for preeminence. I urge you, as the reader, to use the knowledge gained from this conversation to counter adversaries of American values, including White Supremacists, who seek to fracture our society with their archaic Caveman Nationalism. Grasping the idea of a Civilization-State allows one to recognize the distinct and lasting character of these entities, upheld by the shared determination of their people and leaders to maintain their Imperial heritage.

“For good or ill, America is what it is — a culture in its own right, with many characteristic lines of power and meaning of its own, ranking with Greece and Rome as one of the great distinctive civilizations of history.”

— Max Lerner, America As a Civilization

What America Requires
For America's future, we seek to initiate a rebirth that respects our historical traditions while moving beyond the limits of both capitalism and socialism. We aim to rekindle a sense of organic community where citizens actively engage, the economy is managed responsibly, and rural values are revitalized — all within a framework that acknowledges the essential authority of the State. Our intent is to achieve transformation respectfully and peacefully, reinstating a sense of order and rank that resonates with the wisdom of our forebears. At the heart of this vision lies the rejuvenation of Industrial Unionism. We see it not just as a labor movement but as a return to a natural societal structure in which every worker plays a critical part in the greater economic body. This form of unionism creates a sacred bond between those who work in industry and agriculture, reflecting a syndicalist approach that embraces the rich variety of our nation's heritage.

We call for the establishment of a National Labor and State Assembly, a bicameral entity that combines the venerable insights of worker-elected representatives with the strategic oversight of a managerial body for cooperatives. Their joint mission will be to synchronize the diligent efforts of our workforce with the collective economic aspirations of our nation. Our strategy promotes a syndicalist construct that authentically represents the complex weave of American society, incorporating the various identities within our workforce into the dignified mission of production. This model promotes a form of democracy that is deeply connected to the spirit of American workers, anchored in our traditions and sense of community. In the agricultural sector, we propose a cooperative system that brings together individual farmers, rural laborers, and state-run farms into a community network, directed by collectives that blend local expertise with state-level direction. We aim to develop policies that respect local needs and perspectives while aligning with the nation's broader strategic vision, harmonizing local self-governance with national coherence.

Looking outward, we call for the creation of an expansive North American Civilization-State, aimed at strengthening our economic ties and security arrangements. This ambitious concept respects the unique identities of political entities while fostering an international order that is both diverse and united. We support a federalist system where a strong central authority provides vital functions such as conflict resolution and defense, while regions that are rich in their own ethnic and cultural traditions enjoy self-governance. These regions will choose representatives to a Federal government responsible for establishing foundational laws and overseeing our joint economic endeavors, all guided by timeless values.

Lastly, we affirm the profound principle of self-determination within the storied expanse of the Amerikana "Great Space," promoting the creation of semi-autonomous Republics. These Republics will act as stewards of their fate, operating like Nation-States within the larger Civilization-State, empowering communities to choose leaders who genuinely represent their desires, shape their societal norms, manage their economies, safeguard their populations, and legislate in a way that reflects their unique identities. This framework is crafted to honor the natural evolution of America's diverse cultural and identity groups, nurturing unity while preserving the sanctity of our collective heritage and traditions.


A map of the new America Federation

Americanism has a distinctive role on the world stage, which many liberals misunderstand, it is nonetheless a testament to its our influence and leadership. American’s civilizational identity transcends ethnic homogeneity, rooted instead in a rich mosaic of cultures and peoples. True American exceptionalism is deeply intertwined with a reverence for our guiding principles, its commitment to Christian faith, its Imperial history, and its Aristocratic values. It is this profound understanding of the Empire's core ideas and principles that encapsulates the true American Spirit.

“It is the small town, the small city, that is our heritage. We have made twentieth-century America from it, and some account of these communities as they were… we owe our children and grandchildren.”

— Henry Seidel Canby, The Age of Confidence

[Wayne Hall]

www.thelastamericanvagabond.com/keynes-vs-von-hayek-debate-false-dualism-with-malthusian-characteristics/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

[Wayne Hall]

matthewehret.substack.com/p/the-gouzenko-affair-was-always-a

[Wayne Hall]

tomluongo.me/2024/03/14/europe-panics-as-trump-rises-from-the-political-grave/