[Preston Cole]

I think what Rei means is that Japanese nationalistic spirit is still intact, which is pretty apparent as the US couldn't detach the inherent patriotic values of an East Asian culture as much as it wanted. Germany is a different issue because it started two wars and the Allies saw danger in German nationalism. Germany has little nationalistic spirit left in it, at least publicly.

[starman2003]

I think what Rei means is that Japanese nationalistic spirit is still intact, which is pretty apparent as the US couldn't detach the inherent patriotic values of an East Asian culture as much as it wanted.

But there's no aggressive nationalism, they're under the US thumb and apparently used to it. It's true that their society is homogeneous and more coherent, which has helped them compete economically but I don't see any renewed desire for political hegemony.

[Rei Murasame]

Well, have you been paying attention to what's been happening in ASEAN? The United States intervened recently in Philippines and Indonesia specifically by sending Hilary Clinton over there to mess things up, because "Japanese and South Korean power" was getting "too much". Or something to that effect.

[starman2003]

"Japanese and South Korean power" was getting "too much". Or something to that effect.

I'm sure they're much more concerned about China.

[Rei Murasame]

Doesn't alter my point.

[starman2003]

Doesn't alter my point.

Their "power" may have increased but hardly amounts to a new hegemonistic attitude.

[Far-Right Sage]

I have never been to Japan once most unfortunately, but have met various Japanese, young and old over the years while traveling through the United States, particularly when I lived relatively close to NYC, as well as in Europe.

They are not a liberal people. I can't remember the last Japanese man or woman I spoke with who espoused anything remotely internationalist or leftist. This was true even of the young. A very healthy race.

[starman2003]

They are not a liberal people. I can't remember the last Japanese man or woman I spoke with who espoused anything remotely internationalist or leftist.

They have their share of liberals and leftists.

A very healthy race.

If memory serves, their birthrate isn't very high.

[Rei Murasame]

That's a sign of good health.

[Far-Right Sage]

They have their share of liberals and leftists

In comparison to the European left, it is truly miniscule and irrelevant. The last time I remember hearing of active Japanese leftists doing anything to further their own cause was the Japanese Red Army gang and its crusade against Fujimori and the strike on the Japanese embassy in Peru. I imagine they were overwhelmingly considered scum by the Japanese people.

[starman2003]

That's a sign of good health.

It's great for the environment but in the long run it may mean more immigrants like in europe, and less nationalism based on ethnicity. I don't mind that but others here would.

[Rei Murasame]

Or it will just mean more investment in capital equipment as the population reaches a new resting level. There is pretty much never going to be mass immigration into Japan, ever.

[Figlio di Moros]

Rei, are we the only ones who haven't forgotten about automation and reinvestment? I'm sure the west would do just fine without hordes of illiterate xenids crossing our border annually, assuming we felt like not maxing our credit on flatscreens, apple products, and a new car every year and got our savings back in order.

[Rei Murasame]

Oh, I don't think it's a matter of them having forgotten, but rather that it doesn't profit the people who write for Wall Street Journal and CNN, to point it out. So it just never gets put out there.

[Figlio di Moros]

Good point. After all, it's cheaper to allow labor into this country to keep wages at pennies, than to reinvest in automation. So long as they keep us thinking business = economy...

[Jeliza-Rose]

This is interesting. It definitely gives a bit cred to the national-conservatives.

Here's an article you might like ...

The Neo-Conservative Reich of Edgar Julius Jung
http://thescorp.multics.org/19jung.html

"the Conservative project proposed by Jung differed from Hitler's extremist one only in degree and not in kind. The community that Jung wished to turn the German people into was actually brought together in a major way by Hitler's molding of the Nazi movement as a gigantic mass-movement. Of course, this populism lacked the spiritual substance that Jung had stipulated for the community, but the Nazis could at least argue that it was they who laid the völkisch foundations necessary for a uniform spiritual culture."

I think you will have a hard time finding conservatives who opposed Nazism. Mostly they were Aristocrats in the old military who hated Hitler just because he was a "commoner" and not because of his ideals...and also because he had led them into Operation Barbarossa.

The only reason they came up with "Valkyrie" is because they knew the Allies were going to win and they thought that if Hitler was gone, then they could "deal" with the Allies, since they had killed the boogie-man.

As for German conservatives, Arthur Moeller van den Bruck was an important conservative revolutionary way before Hitler. If you read his stuff you realise Hitler just stole most of his shit.

Germany's Third Empire (aka Third Reich)
http://archive.org/details/GermanysThirdEmpire

The Nazi ideal of the individual subordinating himself to the will of the State may appear to be 'socialistic', but it's really derived from a centuries old class society in Germany, where the Monarchy - Aristocrats - and Church were dominate over the rest of the population. Hitler just re-invented it and called it National-Socialist.

"the basic ideas of the National-Socialist movement are volkisch and the volkisch ideas are National-Socialist." ---Adolf Hitler





Baron Julius Evola, was a true rightwing reactionary, one of the original Fascists and a wing-nut.

Revolt Against the Modern World
http://archive.org/details/RevoltAgainstTheModernWorld

Men Among the Ruins
http://archive.org/details/MenAmongTheRuins_536

Evola says that traditional societies are hierarchical because they are a reflection of the un-changing hierarchy of the "cosmos"... the elites like Priests, Kings, and Knights are "Above" whereas the common folk, lay persons, dependents, farmers are "Beneath". Evola called this the "solar order".
Whereas the modern world has put an end to all that and has replaced it with dis-order. Authority and hierarchy are 'leveled" and he considers collectivism a characteristic of Bolshevist and Western societies alike.

Prussianism And Socialism (1920) - Oswald Spengler
http://archive.org/details/PrussianismAndSocialism

Conservative Revolutionary movement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservati ... y_movement

[Far-Right Sage]

Evola was a great writer and visionary with fantastic ideas (I have had the German as well as the English editions of Rivolta contro il mondo moderno on the bookshelf for many years), but he really was not one of the "original Fascists", more an intellectual gadfly to Italian Fascism, which he criticized as a strong opponent of populism which he deemed positively vulgar. In many ways, Evola criticized Fascism from the right.

In reference to the Valkyrie conspirators, what you state just isn't true. It was not merely a gang of conservative-revolutionaries who simply opposed the deterioration of the military picture at the front. It was a preserved ideological core of opposition which had not been sufficiently uprooted by previous purges, evidenced by the intention to place Löbe of the SPD as President of the Reichstag and other SPD men into positions of power, including control of the Interior Ministry.

[Fasces]

Fascism is not reactionary - it cannot be, for it relies on mass movements. Unfortunately, it has to compete with Marxism in that regard. Fascism, unlike communism, cannot and does not promote one class above all others. It is syncretic, and requires support from classes whose interests are diametrically opposed, or at least seem to be. In creating a mass movement, fascists have had to compromise between the wants of the truly reactionary classes, and the desires of the working mass upon which their movement must be built.

This is, to me, one of the fundamental flaws of fascism - it requires a reactionary class to embrace a revolutionary platform, while it does not promise the truly revolutionary class the same power competing revolutionary ideologies offer it, making it a harder sell, so to speak. While the syncretic society that would result is undoubtedly stronger than a purely proletarian or elite-run society, it is a textbook Prisoner's Dilemma to convince both classes to do so.

This is most easily done with the upper classes, who are willing to use fascism to defend their reactionary institutions - and fascist movements have historically been unable to appeal to the proletariat on a sufficient basis (outside lumpen-proles) to avoid selling its soul to these reactionary bankrollers. They use fascism to simulate revolution, and in doing so, placate the masses, while protecting themselves. Franco and Salazar are key examples of this, both quickly excising the revolutionary components of their programme as quickly as possible.

Despite their use of fascism, however, these elites do not care about the fascist programme, and have no desire to actually see it enacted. As a result, they aim to remove it as soon as they have consolidated their position and removed the imminent threat of revolution. Fascism, having defeated the proles, has also left itself defenseless against the conservative onslaught, leading to the degradation of most fascist states into petty dictatorship, and leaving leaders preoccupied with controlling their "allies" rather than establishing a fascist society.

The first fascist to matter in history will be the one that effectively transgresses these issues.

[Rei Murasame]

That is so well said, Fasces. It almost deserves its own thread, since it is so rarely discussed.

[starman2003]

Fascism, having defeated the proles, has also left itself defenseless against the conservative onslaught, leading to the degradation of most fascist states into petty dictatorship, and leaving leaders preoccupied with controlling their "allies" rather than establishing a fascist society.

In the case of the reich at least, that's quite an exaggeration. While Adolf early on had to bow to the old elite and liquidate Roehm, in time he had the conservatives under control too. There was much in the nazi system the old fogies didn't particularly care for--the Hitler Youth, the new nonaristocratic elite, mass rallies, control of State bureaucrats over industry etc.

... transgresses these issues.

Transgresses? Not so well said. Addresses.