What is Salvageable from 1930s Populisms?

[Loddfafner]

When asked if I had 3 wishes, I responded thus:

1. That Apricity members who carry their nationalism to such an extreme that they throw hystrionic fits over misunderstandings of mistranslated statements about their homelands would STFU.

2. That those who have nothing better to do than to make a sport out of baiting said hystrionic nationalists with endless classification threads of calculatedly ambiguous faces would also STFU.

3. That those who would like to engage in genuine philosophical, historical, and cultural discussions would step up their posting, especially those who would like to free the project of European revival from crude imitations of 1930s populism.

I got this mischievous response:

is sophisticated imitation of 1930s populism OK, though?

Obviously I had in mind the usual worship of dead dictators, obsession with Jews, and tendency to deny established but inconvenient historical facts. Certainly the crude imitations of those populist movements that peaked around the 1930s have held back any efforts to defend our folks from an array of post-war ideologies.

My question here is whether there is anything salvageable from that time? Who are the major thinkers who have been thrown out with the bathwater? Evola? Schmitt? Roehm? Pellizzi?

[Bloodeagle]

I don't really care about Evola, Schmitt, Roehm, or Pellizzi, but I would like to see a resurrection of the Art Deco movement of design.

[Psychonaut]

Who are the major thinkers who have been thrown out with the bathwater? Evola? Schmitt? Roehm? Pellizzi?

Certain groups have tried their best to throw out Uncle Marty, but to no avail! I dunno if we can really count Evola as thrown out either. Even in his day, he was far from being a philosopher's philosopher—much more of a 17th century hermetic philosopher. And, his popularity among hermetic types has never really waned.

[Nodens]

I see three primary barriers to any serious salvage/revival/re-appropriation of said right-wing populist current:

1) Cultural Marxist hegemony has currently reduced the Axis and most of their associated ideas/authors/etc. to the level of comic book villains, and will continue to marginalize any serious reevaluation as long as able.

2) Lockeian/Rousseauian political philosophy, which remains the primary opponent of said hegemony in the Anglo- and Franco-spheres, is diametrically opposed to the fundamentally illiberal nature of the (for lack of a better term) Fascist zeitgeist.

3) The fact that (in may cases) the worst elements of the (again, for lack of a better term) Fascist zeitgeist were the the ones that actually came to power.

Three isn't particularly problematic in and of itself, but one and two will require major upset to overcome.

Edit: Obligatory chuckle for associating Evola and populism.

[Lucretius]

Edit: Obligatory chuckle for associating Evola and populism.

It is well known the episode of a large crowd of italian neo-fascists,during the 70ies,asking for some kind of orientations in a world of ruines and decay and the answer of Evola who said first of all make/get you a shower then come back.

[The Ripper]

Why concentrate on the populist, why not concentrate on the intellectual?

[Loddfafner]

Obligatory chuckle for associating Evola and populism.

I admit "populism" is probably not the right word here. I was fumbling for a more neutral and general term than "fascism".

[Joe McCarthy]

The entirety of the fascist paradigm should be trashed and nationalism, so-called, should be pursued in conformity with pro-Allies narratives. The only real problem is demographics, and that can be addressed with immigration restriction and pro-family policies. This will necessitate the following:

- The elimination of the wannabe 'revolutionary' nonsense that wishes to declare war on the mainly American created institutions of world order.

- Heavy denunciation and distancing from anti-Semitism, anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, American plots, and so forth.

- Rejection of reactionary, utopian thinkers like Evola. The man has no practical use in the modern world. Similarly, Schmitt, though useful in spots, is too notorious to be of respectable use.

I'd also add that fascist types are almost invariably hopelessly useless in terms of addressing the challenge from the East, i.e., the rise of China, and are actually radically inferior to mainstream conservatives on this issue. It can be said in many instances that the 'far right' is more of a detriment to 'preservation' than a preservative, as they would also support policies likely to result in a remilitarization of Germany, the destruction of NATO, and an increased chance of pre-WW2 instability.

[Nodens]

I admit "populism" is probably not the right word here. I was fumbling for a more neutral and general term than "fascism".

I'll say that 'populism' has a sort of makes-sense-in-context value, but I don't think that a term that is both politically neutral and sufficiently descriptive exists.

And describing Evola as 'utopian' makes no sense in any context.

[Joe McCarthy]

And describing Evola as 'utopian' makes no sense in any context.

Even in the interwar years the SS regarded Evola's views as being so pie in the sky that they were of no practical use. Fast forward to 2011: how can his neo-medieval worldview address any of the problems we face, and why should he even be viewed favorably at all, given that he clearly preferred Islamist and Japanese 'traditionalists' over Western merchant peoples like Americans?

Evola is the fringer's fringer. A poor man's Spengler who appeals to armchair revolutionaries of the keyboard variety. There's a reason why he's had absolutely zero effect on mainstream politics post-war.