Just as it was in the 1920s, so too will it be the same in the 2020s. As the rate of social progress and economic liberalization accelerates, we are seeing an increase in the desire for alternative options. Much as we must look for a new conception for a new age, we must also realize that this conception can be found in an older understanding from an older age, and one that is not too dissimilar from our own in certain, essential ways.
The 20th Century was a century that came out of revolutions and the decline of the imperial and absolute state. Throughout the past millennium, as ethnic tribes became feudal states, and as feudal states became empires, those empires expanded too far while consolidating too little. By the 20th century, there was no more room for a Romantic longing for the past. Modernity demanded action in the moment, and there was a need to rebuild a new order from the ruins of the old empire. The question is, to what extent would this action and order perpetuate stability and to what extent would it perpetuate degeneration? To what extent could it deviate into chaos?
Three solutions were conceived of throughout the 19th and 20th century, and it took two of these solutions teaming up to wipe out the other during the Second World War. Following this war, we have experienced a dynamic wherein two of these positions live in the shadow of one position (and even stand on its shoulders…).
As the 19th Century converged into the 20th, Liberal-democratic nation-states became increasingly popular, torn between the interests of the “liberalism” and “democracy” or “nation” and “state”.
Where Capitalism sought to use democracy to achieve liberalism, Communism sought to use the state to achieve democracy. Fascism, on the other hand, sought to use the state to maintain the nation and vice versa.
But now, in this post-WW2 dynamic, Communists accuse Capitalists of being Fascist and Capitalists accuse Communists of being Fascist despite the fact that both are and have been prepared to use Fascist means to achieve their “Democratic” ends.
The aforementioned three positions can be further outlined as follows.
The Three Positions
The First Position of Liberalism (to which “Capitalism” belongs) sought to perpetuate the very market forces that decentralized the imperial state (i.e Globalization). The main symptoms of this phenomenon are a desire to put commerce and culture over industry and military. Within the First Position, there is a tendency to believe one can take on expenses above and beyond what the merchant class afford, especially insofar as the militaristic and industrial foundation of civilization is increasingly undermined by financial speculation and cultural subversion.
The Second Position of Marxism (to which “Communism” belongs) sought to use the state to control the economy as a means of spreading the revolution of the proletariat dictatorship worldwide (i.e. Internationalization). The main symptom of this phenomenon is a desire to prioritize the wealth distribution and the interests of the industrial, working class. Within the Second Position, there is a tendency to believe that one should industrialize and equalize at all costs, and often above and beyond what the working class can afford, especially insofar as the spiritual and military ethos of the working class is undermined by a constant demand for labour and a constant revolution against the consolidation of wealth and power.
The Third Position of Fascism built off of the flaws and limitations of the First and Second Positions and saw the centralization of the state as a way to maintain the traditions of the nation while revolutionizing the economy in a way that allowed for the growth of “the Empire” in the most spiritual and militaristic sense of the term. To quote Mussolini:
“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 a 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 rearise are imperialistic; renunciation is characteristic of dying peoples. The Fascist doctrine is that best suited to the tendencies and feelings of a people which, like the Italian, after lying fallow during centuries of foreign servitude, are now reasserting itself in the world”
For Fascism, culture and industry are meant to serve a state with a sense of militarism. Where Liberalism perpetuates cultural degeneration and where Marxism only combats financialization, Fascism serves as a solution to both. Fascism fights subversive degeneration and Fascism fights speculative financialization. Where Marxism and Liberalism use the state while ultimately negating it, Fascism embraces the state and the monopolization of force over a given territory.
Ultimately, the Fascist believes that you cannot have a successful system of commerce and a thriving national culture unless you establish the military and industrial backbone required for such idealisms.
The Third Position
The Third Position, Fascism, deviated into many subcategories and even came to make up certain contradictions in modernity. Although conflated with a very particular subcategory and deviation of Fascism (Hitlerite National Socialism), Fascism takes on a much wider range of forms (some of which opted out of participating in WW2) that were adapted to a wide range of cultures. In other words, the Third Position is not purely or inherently an Ethno-nationalist or Racialist position, rather, it is based on the idea of a strong state that unifies culture and facilitates improvement in as many different areas as possible.
On one hand, there were Proto-Fascist ideologies and figures who represented certain qualities that Fascism shares. From Caesar to Napoleon, Mussolini was quite explicit about the inspiration he took from History that was both ancient (like that of the Roman Empire) and recent (like that of the Risorgimento). On this note, there is a genuine question of whether Fascism is a form of National Socialism or National Socialism a form of Fascism, and it is worth noting that the ideas of the Cercle Proudhoun in France and the ideas of the Konservative Revolution in Germany historically and philosophically converge with the rise of the influences behind Fascism in Italy (i.e. the Italian Elitist School, the Futurist Movement, the City of Fiume, etc…).
On the other hand, there was the Authentic, Italian Fascism, which represented the culmination of certain masculine virtues and authoritarian political beliefs under Benito Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile. While Mussolini started off as a Marxist and Gentile was influenced by Hegel and Marx, Fascism eventually came to incorporate the Militarism of Socialists like Georges Sorel with the Elitism of the Aristocratic Radicalist Friedrich Nietzsche. With the legacy of Rome and the Risorgimento behind them, Mussolini and Gentile were able to tap into a historical tradition and ideological legacy to fuel their political movement.
Many parallel strains of Fascism or Para-Fascist ideologies began to develop in other European nation-states such as Spain, Portugal, Greece, Germany, Austria, and Romania; and in Latin American nation-states like Mexico, Brazil, Bolivia, and Argentina.
It is worth noting that some of these nations did not fight in WW2 while others were on the side of the allies. Moreover, many of these nations practiced forms of Fascism which were not explicitly grounded in race to the same extent that Hitlerite National Socialism was.
And after WW2, there were still lingering cryptic Fascist influences which came to influence the Crypto-Fascist tendencies of modern Marxism (i.e. State-Communism) and modern Liberalism (i.e. State-Capitalism).
Capitalists and Communists both live in the shadows of Fascism, haunted by the spectre of it. They accuse each other of being Fascists while failing to see how they have both been influenced by it (from the economic models they’ve adopted to the scientists they recruited). Marxists and Liberals are like parasites, trying to secretly leech off the power of their synthesis while trying to hide all the while.
A Modern Understanding
For the Third Position to succeed in a modern world, it must understand and weaponize five main points.
- First it must be understand that we are living in a world where transnational/multinational corporations, international investment banks, and private equity funds are effectively (to use a term employed by economist Mancur Olson) roving bandits coming to co-opt and subvert international and supranational governments and the nation-states therein. Only stationary bandits (with power consolidated on executive level and a vested interest in the political economy) can save us from this approaching age.
To quote Olson:
“Under anarchy, uncoordinated competitive theft by “roving bandits” destroys the incentive to invest and produce, leaving little for either the population or the bandits. Both can be better off if a bandit sets himself up as a dictator-a “stationary bandit” who monopolizes and rationalizes theft in the form of taxes. A secure autocrat has an encompassing interest in his domain that leads him to provide a peaceful order and other public goods that increase productivity.”
- It must be understood that, on a moral-level, these looters try to employ slave morals as a means of subverting the state via slave revolt. As a consequence of this, they must hide their own elitism by creating networks and cults within which they compromise and blackmail each-other. This can only be overcome when one elite rises above the rest and jeopardizes their whole operation.
- It must understand is that we are living in nation-states where Nationalism/Traditionalism and Socialism are becoming increasingly popular as an alternative to Progressivism and Capitalism (the byproducts of social and economic liberalization). Where Trump meets Bernie Sanders, a greater synthesis is to be found.
- Where the popular will can be co-opted, a strong state can be consolidated. Where a strong state can be consolidated, a powerful autocrat can shine a light on all the crypto-elites hiding in the shadows.
- The final thing we must understand is that many nation-states around the world (especially in Asia) have adopted the kinds of models and virtues that we are putting forward. By citing examples worldwide and by using the different types of success achieved by different authoritarian and corporatist systems, we can further our cause and make our case within a globalized world.
It is time for people on the Third Position to get serious about politics and put the tradition of White Nationalism behind them…
There’s a reason why people like Huey Long get killed. And there’s a reason the FBI took someone like Francis Parker Yockey out early, while George Lincoln Rockwell was killed by the very kind of ideology, attitude, and ethos that he tried to cultivate.
Herein lies the fundamental difference between 3P and WN: someone who understands the primary and spiritual role of the STATE, above all conceptions purely grounded in race, is a far greater threat to a market dominated by MERCHANTS.