The natural order of raw hierarchy and pack behavior among men that inspire sociobiologists as well as sadomasochists has a more complex relationship to social structure and class struggle than many realize. The NSDAP (National Socialist German Workers Party) used the animal sense of order to justify itself, while now the dictators of the New World Order use the erasure of the mammal within to make themselves look good.

back to the
SKINDEX
NEXT



Fascism, Multiculturalism and Crack

Do fascist skins make your blood flow faster, in lust as much as fear?

What is missing from the world that makes the brazenness of their resistance so intense, even if the specifics of the ideology are crazy, they threaten people you care for, are fighting for a world you would not enjoy living in, and you yourself may be a target of their violence?

Why is it that some of the most marginalized and least respected people around find so much hope in a central European dictatorship that led to catastophic failure over half a century ago?

"Fascism -- that is, the practical negation of historical materialism and, still more, the negation of democratic individualism, of the rationalism of the Enlightenment -- fascism is ... the practical affirmation of the value of the spiritual and historical personality (of man, the nation, humanity) as opposed to and in opposition to reason and the abstract and empirical individuality of the men of the Enlightenment, the positivists, and the utilitarians."-- C. Pellizzi
When an enlightened, positivist, utilitarian form of social control regulates the community, self and body more thoroughly than any old-fashioned despot, where do you turn? Some want the state to regulate love (as in banning homosexuality) and some want it to regulate hate. Either way, they call in the State to rule your heart, head, and dick or cunt.

Because it has been drummed in our heads repeatedly that the concept of equality promises and recognizes the dignity of each individual, does not mean that it can't also work to disguise the reality that conditions of work may leave a lot of people dehumanized.

Is the vocal racist denying the humanity of people of color, or is he struggling to hold on to his own humanity in a time when everyone is being reduced to interchangeable units to do shitwork, consume crap, and vote for conmen, and nothing more?

And does the loss of confidence in European high culture as well as the unmaking of the working class and its ways of life really count as progress?

Fascism is both a rebellion against uniformity and it is a desire for purity, and the wish that there was something absolute about such things as nation, race, sex, and how you should conduct yourself.

If you really want purity then smoke crack. Just as the fascist wants to assume that if you share an identity then the identity you share is identical for each other, a hit of crack will produce the same sensations and neurological effects on a man or a monkey. And just as the holocaust is the flip side of the coin of pursuit of Aryan purity, look at the stress that the purity of crack has on the rest of the crackhead's life. As they pursue that one pure moment, everything around them collapses.

Strength does not come from purity, but from flexibility. You must be flexible if you want to build your strength enough to stay effective, proud, and generous, while conditions around you change. Keeping a culture pure will hold back the creative energies of our people much more than it will release them.

Purity is impossible. If the white power skins ever do win a Racial Holy War, what will they do next? They will look at each other, trying not to puke at the stench of all the dead bodies, and say, "Oi! Isnt it great to be White? Wow now we are all White" then they will turn on each other, and the survivors will starve. They will have smashed all the means of keeping an economy going and producing the goods they will need. Hoping to live off the land, they will find they have burned all the seeds and destroyed even the means of making tractors.

The multiculturalists think that embracing diversity is the answer. There is something to be said for diversity: no single culture can force its rules on you. And, it is common sense among political scientists that a society will be more stable if its elites are recruited from all of the subpopulations it governs. If I were administering a large organization I would want to encourage a climate of "diversity" just to make that organization more governable. But why should we all take the point of view of administrators? Yes, TV shows and the rest of the propaganda apparatus takes that point of view, but must we all unflinchingly adopt it for ourselves? Why should we all consent to be so easily governable?

The multicultis are too fixated on a self-image of themselves as rebels and revolutionaries to notice how neatly their politics have come to coincide with the needs of administrators, bureaucrats, and the rich, and may even clash with the needs of other marginalized peoples.

The multicultis are as foolish as the crackheads and the fascists in pursuing their own form of purity. They look for one common language, and what to say that will offend the fewest as if you can make everyone happy. They really think that the world is only made out of language. They seek the pull us all down to the lowest common denominator. If they recognize class at all, they see it as nothing more than yet another chip on their shoulders to lovingly polish.

Their enlightened form of social control is more thorough and destructive of liberty and the well-being of individuals and communities than the worst of the old absolute monarchs.

LAST

"The slave revolt in morals begins by rancor turning creative and giving birth to values-the rancor of beings who, deprived of the direct outlet of action, compensate by an imaginary vengeance. All truly noble morality grows out of triumphant self-affirmation. Slave ethics, on the other hand, begins by saying no to an "outside," an "other," a non-self, and that no is its creative act. This reversal of direction of the evaluating look, this invariable looking outward instead of inward, is a fundamental feature of rancor. Slave ethics requires for its inception a sphere different from and hostile to its own. Physiologically speaking, it requires an outside stimulus in order to act at all; all its action is reaction. The opposite is true of aristocratic valuations: such values grow and act spontaneously, seeking out their contraries only in order to affirm themselves even more gratefully and delightedly." -- Nietzsche

NEXT