Saturday, July 30, 2016

RNC-DNC: IMPRESSION II.


The two major parties have just nominated the two most negatively perceived candidates in America. All third-party alternatives are admittedly a joke. What could have been cautiously accepted as a hopeful voice in the wilderness has turned coat and disgracefully abandoned his angry but already dispirited army.

Is this a severe case of national masochism, or a true reflection of the paucity of worthy national candidates to occupy the office of the President of the United States and to become the leader of the free world?

As a sentimental historian of the monumental, I can’t help it. – My heart weeps.

Tuesday, July 26, 2016

IN DEFENSE OF UNDISCIPLINED THOUGHT


Is totalitarianism a good thing or a bad thing? Hold back your outrage for now. What is totalitarianism – not in the eyes of its vehement detractors, but in the eyes of its most reasonable promoters?..

Forget the latter, though. Any open form of defense of philosophical totalitarianism has been effectively criminalized in our clueless time. But of course all sorts of roundabout movements abound and flourish. Human thought has little tolerance for thought disciplinarians.

What is the difference between patriotism and nationalism? Is it good or bad to put your country first? – “Good or bad, it’s my country”?..

Unity or diversity?..

Grant me one thing. The issues involved here are more complex than what propaganda and conventional wisdom would like us to subscribe to. One does not have to be a fascist or a communist to dignify this issue  with serious and hopefully unprejudiced consideration. In fact, the issue of totalitarianism may well be the most important stumbling block in all political science, and by far the most important bone of contention in all political philosophy. All the more so that modern society is being constantly bombarded by the onslaught of globalism, bringing its latent totalitarian tendency first back to life and next to the fore…

Surprised? Perhaps modern political science (I am afraid that political philosophy as such has not survived the twentieth century) is doing a lousy job, to keep you unsurprised. Perhaps political science doesn’t do its job at all…

Monday, July 25, 2016

RNC-DNC: IMPRESSION I.


Preamble. No taking sides on my part, for the reason explained in the closing entry of this short sequence. Also: Forget the emails and other such scandals. Look at the broad generalities.

Impression I. Both houses a mess. RNC: Individuals making the mess. Crowds for unity. DNC: Individuals for unity. Crowds making the mess.

To be continued

Thursday, July 21, 2016

TOTALITARIAN CENTRIPETALISM


Over the course of numerous entries, I have been diligently stressing my view of the clear distinction between totalitarianism and authoritarianism. In a nutshell, totalitarianism is about the State and its Leader, whereas authoritarianism is about the ruler and his whim. But this is of course a simplification of sorts. Society (yes, any society, even a historically democratic society) has strong natural totalitarian tendencies. It would love to find and extol an exceptional leader in an elected official (although establishment democracy, as a rule, would prefer a mediocrity). Therefore, there is such a thing as totalitarian envy. Society is eager to accept an autocratic despot as a totalitarian leader until either the autocrat becomes a totalitarian, or else the autocrat falls short of the totalitarian expectation, and is exposed for what he is -- a petty dictator -- which means that another regime change is in order.

All this is rather confusing to the eye of the political watcher, hence so much confusion about the definition of autocratic and totalitarian rule and about the characterization of this or that personage as either one or the other. But obviously it is hard to be confused about mediocrity. Ironically, totalitarianism, when institutionalized, will be comfortable with mediocrity. Stable totalitarianism, just like democracy, prefers status quo. Yet an advanced “state of quo” starts smelling too much of rigor mortis. In such a case, a “revolution” may well be in the cards.

Monday, July 18, 2016

HITLER'S GENTILE


(At first sight, this entry does not belong in the Collective section, but in reality it does, and for a good reason. It is all-too-closely connected to the previous entry Man Of The Prinzip, and, in fact, serves as a postscript to it, as the reader is about to see presently. Incidentally, its title is a rather clever play on words. “Gentile is of course the Italian philosopher of fascism Giovanni Gentile, used as a metaphor for any similar philosophical apologist of fascism in Germany, provided one can be found. The intellectual author of the Führerprinzip ought to be the counterpart to Gentile in Germany, in other words, Hitler’s Gentile. There is one problem with this neat parallel, however: Such a man does not seem to exist! All potential candidates fall by far too short of Giovanni Gentile’s stature.)

The Italian doctrine of fascismo owes its formulation to the political inspiration of Benito Mussolini and the remarkable philosophical genius (I naturally employ the word genius here without stamping it with a moral seal of approval) of Giovanni Gentile. Realizing that finding a parallel figure in Nazi Germany would be an intellectual boon, even though skeptical all along, I have spent some time poring through John Toland, William L. Shirer, and other honored-by-mold (I say this with a straight face: I would take a moldy history book over a freshly printed festival for the eyes anytime!) sources, particularly digging into the intellectual contribution to German Nazism of such characters as Dr. Karl Lüger, Mayor of Vienna and Alfred the RussianRosenberg (he got his nickname as a native of Estonia which at the time of his birth in 1893 was a part of the Russian Empire), and a few other Third Reich intellectuals, but eventually gave up on them, as none could be compared to the Italian Gentile. Apparently, Nazi Germany took so much philosophical rationalization, and even implementation, from Italy that there was no pressing urgency for a German Gentile to emerge, and, guess what, he never did!

Ironically, German fascism proved itself much tougher than the Italian prototype, yet it had sprung from an admittedly foreign, not even technically German, soil (Austrian, Sudeten, etc.), and from some scandalously non-Aryan roots...

Thursday, July 14, 2016

MAN OF THE PRINZIP. PART IV.


The conclusion of this multi-part entry has once again Wikipedia in teal, proper quotations in blue, and my occasional in-text comments in red. ---

Hitler’s Nazism drew heavily on Italian Fascism: nationalism, including collectivism and populism, based on nationalist values; the Third Position (including class collaboration, corporatism, economic planning, mixed economy, national syndicalism, protectionism, and the studies of socialism which fit the Nazi party ideologues and agendas); totalitarianism (including dictatorship, holism, major social interventionism, and statism); and militarism. (The fact that German Nazi ideology was chronologically posterior to Italian totalitarian Fascism has been amply discussed already, and no wonder that the Third Reich borrowed a lot from the last Roman Imperium. However, it was not entirely derivative, as all totalitarian philosophies, both “anterior” and “posterior” rely heavily on the totalitarian principles of the grandfather of them all, Plato. At the same time, we must admit that totalitarianism is a natural tendency in human society, Plato or no Plato. In that respect, each manifestation of totalitarianism anywhere has its own peculiarities and idiosyncrasies, which clarifies the following discourse about the “uniqueness” of German Nazism. –)

Uniquely, Nazism added a non-rationalist racial dimension to this otherwise typically Fascist ideology:

“Every manifestation of human culture, every product of art, science and technical skill, which we see before our eyes to-day, is almost exclusively the product of the Aryan creative power. This very fact fully justifies the conclusion that it was the Aryan alone who founded a superior type of humanity; therefore he represents the archetype of what we understand by the term: “Mann.” He is the Prometheus of mankind, from whose shining brow the divine spark of genius has at all times flashed forth, always kindling anew that fire which, in the form of knowledge, illuminated the dark night by drawing aside the veil of mystery and thus showing man how to rise and become master over all the other beings on the earth. Should he be forced to disappear, a profound darkness will descend on the earth; within a few thousand years human culture will vanish, and the world will become a desert.” (Mein Kampf)

The anti-rationalist identification between Aryanism and Germanism, and its esoteric opposition to Jewish Bolshevism, was a source of much confusion. Large institutions were established to define what an Aryan was, with poor success and finally the concept evolved around their practical needs. Originally some Aryan peoples, like Roma, were excluded and annihilated, while certain “infrahuman” East Slavs, like Ukrainians, were redefined as Aryans during the war, for the sake of alliances.

Although Nazism experimented with many different ideas, the core values of Hitler and most of his popular base are seen by some as strongly conservative and have been usually defined as reactionary. Hitler and the Nazis supported a certain subset of traditional values:

---Antifeminism. The role of women in Nazi Germany was still defined with the traditional formula Kinder, Küche, Kirche. In a 1934 speech, Hitler stated that the slogan “Emancipation of Women was invented by Jewish intellectuals, and its content was formed by the same spirit. In the really good times of German life, the German woman had no need to emancipate herself. She possessed exactly what nature had necessarily given her to administer and preserve; just as the man in his good times had no need to fear that he would be ousted from his position in relation to the woman. In fact, woman was least likely to challenge his position. Only when he was not completely certain in his knowledge of his task did the eternal instinct of self--, and race-preservation begin to rebel in women. There then grew from this rebellion a state of affairs, which was unnatural and lasted until both sexes returned to the respective spheres which an eternally wise providence had preordained for them. If the man’s world is said to be the State, his struggle, his readiness to devote his powers to the service of the community, then it may perhaps be said that the woman’s is a smaller world. For, her world is her husband, her family, her children, and her home. Strong social and familiar order with rigid hierarchization of all aspects of life, supported by harsh discipline and a militaristic point of view.

---Extreme homophobia, leading to the extermination of homosexuals.

---Persecution of the so-called “degenerate” art.

---Strong rejection of youth sex, prostitution, pornography and “sexual vice.” Smoking, drinking and use of cosmetics were discouraged.

Here are a few more quotations from Mein Kampf:

“If we study the course of our cultural life during the last twenty-five years, we will be astonished to note how far we have already gone in this process of retrogression. Everywhere we find the presence of the germs that give rise to protuberant growths which must sooner or later bring about the ruin of our culture. Here we find undoubted symptoms of slow corruption; and woe to the nations that are no longer able to bring that morbid process to a halt.

In almost all the various fields of German art and culture those morbid phenomena may be observed. Here everything seems to have passed the culminating point of its excellence and to have entered the curve of a hasty decline. At the beginning of the century the theatres seemed already degenerating and ceasing to be cultural factors, except the Court theatres, which opposed this prostitution of the national art. With these exceptions, and also a few other decent institutions, the plays produced on the stage were of such a nature that the people would have benefited by not visiting them at all. A sad symptom of decline was manifested by the fact that in the case of many ‘art centers’ the sign was posted on the entrance doors: For Adults Only. …That such a mentality (racial purity) may be possible cannot be denied in a world where hundreds and thousands accept the principle of celibacy from their own choice, without being obliged or pledged to do so by anything except an ecclesiastical precept. Why should it not be possible to induce people to make this sacrifice if instead of such a precept they were simply told that they ought to put an end to this truly original sin of racial corruption, which is steadily being passed on from one generation to another. And, further, they ought to be brought to realize that it is their bound duty to give to the Almighty Creator beings such as He himself made to His own image.

Prostitution is a disgrace to humanity and cannot be removed simply by charitable or academic methods. Its restriction and final extermination presupposes the removal of a whole series of contributing circumstances. The first remedy must always be to establish such conditions as make early marriage possible, especially for young men--- for women are, after all, only passive subjects in this matter.

Those who want seriously to combat prostitution must first of all assist in removing the spiritual conditions on which prostitution thrives. They will have to clean up the moral pollution of our city 'culture' fearlessly and without regard for the outcry which is sure to follow. If we do not drag our youth out of the morass of their present environment, they will be engulfed by it. Those people who do not want to see these things are deliberately encouraging them, and they are guilty of spreading the effects of prostitution to the future, as the future belongs to our young generation. This process of cleansing our Kultur will have to be applied in practically all spheres. The stage, art, literature, the cinema, the Press and advertisement posters--- all must have stains of pollution removed, and be placed in the service of a national and cultural idea. The life of the people must be freed from the asphyxiating perfume of our modern eroticism, and also, from every unmanly and prudish form of insincerity. In all these things the aim and the method must be determined by a thoughtful consideration for the preservation of our national well-being in body and soul. The right to personal freedom comes second in importance to the duty of maintaining the race.”

Hitler blamed Germany’s parliamentary government for many of the nation’s ills, and wrote that he would destroy that form of government. Many historians have asserted that his essential character can be found in Mein Kampf. In this book, he categorized human beings by their physical attributes, claiming that German, or Nordic Aryans were at the top of the hierarchy, while assigning the bottom orders to Jews and Roma. He proclaimed that dominated peoples benefit by learning from superior Aryans, and said that the Jews were conspiring to keep this master race from rightfully ruling the world by diluting its racial and cultural purity, and exhorting Aryans to believe in “equality”, rather than in superiority and inferiority. He also described a struggle for world domination, an ongoing racial, cultural, and political battle between the Aryans and the Jews. (Hitler’s Germanism is by no means original, of course. Fichte had made this point no less eloquently and emphatically well over a century before Hitler.)

This may conclude the present entry, but its subject is carried on into the next entry Hitler’s Gentile. It is therefore proper to close this one with “To Be Continued…

Monday, July 11, 2016

MAN OF THE PRINZIP. PART III.


Part III.

We continue now with a closer look at Hitler’s peculiar strain of anti-Marxism, equated in his strange mind not with the professed ideology of the Soviet state, but rather with Western financial capitalism. Why was he then so intolerant toward domestic anti-capitalists, the “leftists”? Anti-Semitism can be seen as the main reason, but such an answer would be too vague. Hitler’s totalitarianism had no tolerance for a multi-party system, and he persecuted German leftists primarily as unwanted competition. Curiously, though, when the German communists flocked to join the Nazi Party, he became suspicious of them and treated them harshly, to say the least. Thus, his fight against his leftist rivals, like his merciless extermination of his own, but not entirely his own, Brownshirts, was more practical than ideological in its nature. Wikipedia, though, together with other sources, misses this nuance. Continuing now with Wikipedia in teal, proper quotations in blue, and my occasional in-text comments in red ---

Because of this view, the leftist political dissidents were the first victims to be targeted by the Nazi regime much before Racial discrimination was applied, on the basis of the Reichstag Fire Decree. The following quote comes from Hermann Göring’s March 3, 1933 Directive to the Prussian Police Authorities:

“All other restraints on police action, imposed by the Reich and Land Law, are abolished, in so far as this is necessary to achieve the purpose of the decree. In keeping with the purpose and aim of the decree, certain additional measures shall be directed against the Communists in the first instance, but then also against those who cooperate with the Communists and against those who support or encourage their criminal aims. [...] I would point out that any necessary measures against members or establishments of other than the Communist, Anarchist, or Social Democratic parties can only be justified by the decree if they serve to help the defense against Communist activities in the widest sense.”

Persecution and extermination of these political groups was systematic in Germany and the occupied zones during the War.

By and large Hitler is a Pan-Germanic hyper-nationalist, whose ideology was built around a philosophically authoritarian (sic! – see my next comment…), anti-Marxist, anti-Semitic, anti-democratic Weltanschauung. There are strong connections to the values of Nazism and to the anti-rationalistic tradition of the romantic movement of the early nineteenth century in response to the Age of Enlightenment. Strength, passion, frank declarations of feelings, and deep devotion to the family and to the community were valued by the Nazis, albeit first expressed by Romantic artists, musicians, and writers. German romanticism in particular had expressed these values. For instance, Hitler identified closely with the music of Richard Wagner, who harbored anti-Semitic views as the author of Das Judenthum in der Musik. Some claim that he was one of Hitler’s role models, a disputed comment of Kubizek’s. The Nazi idealization of German tradition, folklore, volkisch culture, leadership, exemplified by Frederick the Great and eventually instantiated in the Führerprinzip, their rejection of the liberalism and parliamentarianism of the Weimar Republic, and calling the German state the Third Reich, has led many to regard the Nazis as reactionary.

(Those who identify Hitler’s philosophy as “authoritarian” tend to disregard the basic difference between authoritarianism and totalitarianism. The FührerPrinzip is not an authoritarian, but an essentially totalitarian concept. It is true that human nature is susceptible to the temptation of power, and a totalitarian leader can become an authoritarian despot, but not for long. Authoritarian tendencies in a totalitarian leader mark him for destruction. Totalitarianism is not about despotic rule, but about being the selfless leader of society. We have a perfect example of such a leader in Stalin, who never cared about personal gain, which is the ambition of mediocrity. Stalin had a far larger ambition. He wished to represent the will and striving of the totality of the Soviet nation. It is obviously hard for a mediocre social scientist or a politician to grasp the sheer magnitude and intensity of personal gratification in a totalitarian leader, as opposed to an authoritarian ruler. This is probably the main reason why political science is so much confused about these two types. Hitler was a totalitarian, but of a weaker sort than Stalin. Like Mussolini, Hitler was an ebullient showman, which may be good for an aspiring populist, but bad for a seasoned totalitarian. Hitler’s biggest mistake was that he was not keen enough to see Stalin for what he was: the consummate totalitarian leader, and to see Russia for what she was: a functioning totalitarian society. In other words, Hitler badly underestimated the USSR, and Germany paid the ultimate price for disobeying Bismarck’s testament regarding Russia. Bismarck had advised against a confrontation with Russia, not just to avoid Germany fighting a losing war on two fronts. Like the Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville before him, and Friedrich Nietzsche shortly after him, he must have sensed the immensity of the inner strength of the emerging global giant. Bismarck’s hallmark advice to Germany, so recklessly disregarded by Hitler, equated attacking Russia with "committing suicide.")

To be continued…

Thursday, July 7, 2016

MAN OF THE PRINZIP. PART II.


An important note. Although the difference between Hitler’s Mein Kampf One and Mein Kampf Two gets a comprehensive treatment in my History section, a short reminder is certainly advisable. The reader must by no means confuse Mein Kampf One and Mein Kampf Two with the 1st and 2nd volumes of Hitler’s infamous book. In my treatment, Mein Kampf One is the first edition of Mein Kampf (1925), consisting of a single volume. The later second edition (1926) consisting of volume 1 and the newly written volume 2 presents a radically revised version of the original book. For this reason I call both volume 1 and volume 2 of the second edition “Mein Kampf Two.”

The following are a few instructive details on the sorely confused political beliefs of Germany’s Man of the Prinzip, which obviously belong to his “Mein Kampf Two period, when his motivated anti-Soviet and pro-Western handlers put him on a collision course with the USSR... I am condensing here a modern Western source in Wikipedia, which ought not to be completely trusted, not because it is Wikipedia, but because all Western sources (and the Russians assist them by keeping silent on this crucial matter) do not seem, or do not wish to understand the key difference between Mein Kampf One and Mein Kampf Two amply discussed in the History section.

In a nutshell, Hitler originally regarded international capitalism as the greatest enemy of German national-socialism. On the other hand, he believed that Russian socialism could be an ally of German socialism, but only on the condition of its purification from the “communists.” The question of Lebensraum, a glaring contradiction, was not an issue in Mein Kampf One, but became a compelling issue in Mein Kampf Two.

In Hitler’s mind, Communism is the primary enemy of Germany. (Western capitalism had been the actual enemy in Mein Kampf One, but this fact is habitually disregarded by Western historians. What really unites MKI and MKII, what rides strong through them despite their otherwise diametrical opposition, is Hitler’s morbid anti-Semitism. In both cases, financial capitalism in the first, and “Marxist communism in the second, are attributed to Jewish influence. Try to figure that one out!) The following is quoted from Mein Kampf Two:

“…In the years 1913 and 1914, I expressed my opinion for the first time in various circles, some of which have now become members of the National Socialist Movement, that the problem of how the future of the German nation can be secured is the problem of how Marxism can be exterminated… In this manner, the struggle against the present State had been placed on a higher plane than that of petty revenge and small conspiracies. It was elevated to the level of a spiritual struggle, on behalf of a Weltanschauung, for the destruction of Marxism in all its shapes and forms…” (Clearly, to Hitler, Western financial capitalism is the most distinctive “shape and form” of Marxism. Let’s keep that in mind before we carelessly equate Hitler’s anti-Marxism with anti-Sovietism. In fact, the only issue putting Hitler on a collision course with Russia is Lebensraum!)

“In view of the complete subordination of the present State to Marxism, the National Socialist Movement feels all the more bound not only to prepare the way for the triumph of its idea by appealing to the reason and understanding of the public, but also to take upon itself the responsibility of organizing its own defense against the terror of the International, which is intoxicated with its own victory.”

According to Hitler, Marxism is a Jewish strategy to subjugate Germany and the World:

“For this purpose French armies would first have to invade and overcome the territory of the German Reich until a state of international chaos would set in, and then the country would have to succumb to Bolshevik storm troops in the service of Jewish international finance. (Communism in the service of capitalism?! Isn’t that a little bit confusing?. But we can clearly see from this weird sentence where MKI meets MKII.) Hence it is that at the present time the Jew is the great agitator for the complete destruction of Germany. Whenever we read of attacks against Germany that take place in any part of the world, the Jew is always the instigator. In peacetime, as well as during the War, the Jewish-Marxist stock-exchange Press had systematically stirred up hatred against Germany, until one State after another abandoned its neutrality and placed itself at the service of the world coalition, even against the real interests of its own people. The Jewish way of reasoning thus becomes perfectly clear. The Bolshevization of Germany, that is to say the extermination of patriotic and national German intellectuals, thus making it possible to force German Labor to bear the yoke of the international Jewish finance-- that is only the overture to the movement for expanding Jewish power on a wider scale and finally subjugating the world to its rule.” (Observe how Hitler makes indistinguishable “communism” and financial capitalism. This is obviously not exactly the raving of a lunatic, since most of the German nation would eventually embrace this kind of “Weltanschauung.” Take notice, however, that Hitler’s rhetoric here, a strong echo of Mein Kampf One, is decidedly more anti-capitalist than anti-Soviet, for what it’s worth.)

To be continued…

Monday, July 4, 2016

INDEPENDENCE DAY 2016


Happy Fourth of July to the American readers of our blog!

May this day always remind the American people of the true foundation of this nation’s greatness.

Galina and Alexander.

Friday, July 1, 2016

MAN OF THE PRINZIP. PART I.


What is political correctness? It is a refusal to face and discuss uncomfortable things. It is an enthusiastic adherence to outright clichés and platitudes which nobody would quarrel with, and extreme fear of any kind of political terra incognita.

As a result, political correctness amounts to philosophical and political impotence, business as usual, if you like, but at a terrible hidden cost to the nation that practices it.

Staying out of politics and not holding a politically-charged job, I enjoy the luxury of having flushed political correctness down the drain. This  is also a tribute, with the Fourth of July approaching, to the great country where free thought is still allowed, although it does not pay much, or rather, not at all.

And so, my treatment of sensitive subjects continues.

The series on Italian fascism is inevitably followed by the series on German fascism. General entries on the nature of totalitarianism can be found throughout my blog postings over the last decade, and some more of them will follow later.

***

For obvious reasons, I used to find Mussolini and the fascist regime in Italy theoretically far more interesting than the Nazi German counterpart. After all, Italy takes precedence over Germany in that respect, and her philosophical study of the nature of totalitarismo and fascismo (both originally-coined Italian words), plus the international stature of their chief philosophical proponent Giovanni Gentile, makes it a no-contest comparison.

But of course there is a big difference between politico-philosophical theory and political practice, and here the situation is dramatically reversed. Whereas politically the Mussolini regime proved to be rather shaky, even without the misfortunes of getting drawn into World War II terminally, Hitler’s Germany displayed a remarkable staying power, and, had it not been for a series of lethal blunders on Der Führer’s part, the biggest of them being his 1941 invasion of Russia, the Third Reich might have come triumphant out of WWII, with consequences of unimaginable nature. It is, therefore, not so much a question of subjective interest (mainly from the politico-philosophical point of view, to be sure) as it is of objective geo-political importance, and it is in this latter respect that Germany of the Third Reich is unquestionably more important than Italy of the Last Imperium.

There are several entries relating to Hitler in my History section, and even more on him in my unpublished book Stalin, and Other Family. The rationale for this entry is to provide some additional information on him, for the purpose of further study. The title here is Man Of The Prinzip, which is, of course, not a unique feature of the Nazi regime. The Führerprinzip, although a German word, identifies the most characteristic element of the nature of all totalitarian societies, and as such equally applies to Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin before him; Mao, Kim, and Ho after him, not to mention numerous other lesser cases. In a well-refined and somewhat humanized form it is present in the Putin cult in today’s Russia, and I do not see anything wrong with that, as long as the particular national psyche demands a heroic leader now. It is only the abuse, which often comes naturally, of the office of the Leader, that leads the society away from healthy totalitarianism toward unhealthy authoritarian excesses, which ought to be condemned and delegitimized.

Hitler’s initial excesses were ostensibly legitimized by Germany’s mistreatment after the Great War (World War I). No such abuse was done to Germany after World War II, even though the German nation may have deserved it the second time around to a far greater extent than in the first instance.

But Hitler’s later excesses on all fronts revealed a very high level of political inconsistency which weighed the state down, and eventually made the lethal mistakes of the regime inevitable.

To be continued…