- 30 Dec 2015 00:24
#14636860
I understand that both groups of people are on this board, myself being part of the traditionalist camp. I was curious to know from fascists what you think differentiates you from traditionalists and vice versa.
I suppose the main reasons why I reject fascism in favour of traditionalism is: 1) Fascist states have historically been totalitarian police states, which I find totally unnatural and dehumanising. Great men cannot flourish out of totalitarian conditions of perpetual paranoia and fear. I also believe that as a result of totalitarianism viewing the individual as simply a instrument of the state, it means any form of inhuman atrocity can be committed. Again, this cannot be a realistic method of encouraging virtuous behaviour amongst men. 2) As Antonio Salazar said, fascism - as a result of its rejection of Christian morality - seems to have no respect for the legal or moral order. A fascist dictator lacks moral restraint, and thus, the aforementioned totalitarian state can be birthed. As someone of the Anglosphere, I could not reasonably reject the right to a fair trial, yet all Fascist states (as far as I am aware) removed this right. This is a perfect example of the fascist state seeking to eradicate all moral constraints in favour of running an efficient totalitarian state. I will note however that Oswald Mosley supported the protection of such a right, so perhaps this particular objection to fascism is based upon the historical instances of fascism rather than the underlying philosophy of fascism. 3) Its adoration for violence I find abhorrent and rather silly. I am by no means a pacifist and very much recognise that glory and strength can emerge from warfare, but to actively endorse violence as a means of character building and instilling virtues is insane. Society must be stable and somewhat peaceful in order for it to reach its civilisational heights.
I suppose the main reasons why I reject fascism in favour of traditionalism is: 1) Fascist states have historically been totalitarian police states, which I find totally unnatural and dehumanising. Great men cannot flourish out of totalitarian conditions of perpetual paranoia and fear. I also believe that as a result of totalitarianism viewing the individual as simply a instrument of the state, it means any form of inhuman atrocity can be committed. Again, this cannot be a realistic method of encouraging virtuous behaviour amongst men. 2) As Antonio Salazar said, fascism - as a result of its rejection of Christian morality - seems to have no respect for the legal or moral order. A fascist dictator lacks moral restraint, and thus, the aforementioned totalitarian state can be birthed. As someone of the Anglosphere, I could not reasonably reject the right to a fair trial, yet all Fascist states (as far as I am aware) removed this right. This is a perfect example of the fascist state seeking to eradicate all moral constraints in favour of running an efficient totalitarian state. I will note however that Oswald Mosley supported the protection of such a right, so perhaps this particular objection to fascism is based upon the historical instances of fascism rather than the underlying philosophy of fascism. 3) Its adoration for violence I find abhorrent and rather silly. I am by no means a pacifist and very much recognise that glory and strength can emerge from warfare, but to actively endorse violence as a means of character building and instilling virtues is insane. Society must be stable and somewhat peaceful in order for it to reach its civilisational heights.