Why Fascists Are Anti-Dogmatic

by Judas

Fascism, as a concept, opposes dogma, and I would like to delve into this topic in a serious manner. Fascism embraces both relativism and objectivism concurrently. While there exists a universal truth within Fascism, the path to attaining this truth may vary as each nation evolves. In the pursuit of Fascist objectives, all aspects can be utilized. Whether one aligns with tradition or opposes it, favors imperialism or stands against it, supports centralization or decentralization, or holds religious or agnostic beliefs (while excluding atheism), all these positions can hold value within the realm of Fascism. When it is pointed out that Brazilian Integralists opposed the Axis powers, the response is straightforward: their loyalty lies with Brazilian Integralism, and it is not their obligation to defend European Fascism, even if it may be desirable. The response remains: so what?

As Fascists, we must perceive everything as ideal. Even the material reality we perceive is an ideal reality, regardless of any attempts to distort it. All our experiences are ideas, qualia, irrespective of how they are conceptualized. The material conditions themselves hold little significance; what truly matters is a comprehensive understanding of the material world. Whether privatization occurs or not becomes inconsequential as long as the right ideas are present and the oppressive system has been transformed through sheer power. For Fascism, Capitalism extends beyond mere private ownership of the means of production; such a viewpoint represents a reductionist materialistic perspective. Capitalism is an ideal projected onto the means of production, encompassing the lives of workers. It is not a soulless and abstract material concept, but rather a nuanced and multifaceted ideal.

“When we talk about capitalism - and everyone knows this - we do not talk about property. Private property is the opposite of capitalism; property is the direct projection of a man on his possessions: it is a basic human attribute. Capitalism has gone and substituted the property of men with the property of capital as a technical instrument of economic domination. Capitalism, by means of the terrible and unequal competition between big capital and small property, continuously lowers the glass ceiling - small industry, small agriculture: has all been placed - and every time in larger concentrations - in the hands of the large trusts, of big banking conglomerates. Capitalism reduces the end result of employers and laborers, of workers and businessmen, to the same situation of angst, to the same inhuman situation where man is removed of all his possessions, of the entire content of his existence…”

— José Antonio Primo de Rivera, speech in Madrid, 19 May 1935

Fascism involves individuals projecting their ideas onto their property, just as José Antonio Primo de Rivera astutely pointed out. Private property itself is not inherently malevolent, but it is the way in which individuals employ and manipulate it that can lead to corruption. Fascism was intentionally designed to encompass both absolute and relative elements, regardless of the misconceptions some may try to propagate. We are not dogmatic zealots who cling to theories as if they were sacred scriptures, unlike Communists. If we were, we would be constantly shifting from one ideology to another, much like those on the left. "Oh, Lenin said this, so you're mistaken." "Wait a moment, Trotsky argued that." "Ha! Marx wrote this in a letter from 1856, so I'm correct!" Do you see the problem here?

Demonstrating the dogmatism of communism

Gentile's writings hold significance within the context of Fascism, but they should not be regarded as the definitive and exclusive authority on the ideology. Fascist nations possess the freedom to interpret and adapt elements of Fascism based on their own philosophers and develop unique theories. While Gentile's works are crucial for understanding Fascism, they do not represent the absolute and final word on the subject. Gentile's ideas serve as a foundation, but the subsequent evolution of Fascism lies within our hands. Italian Fascism drew inspiration from Hegelian totalitarian imperialism, Nazism from Fichtean racialist state concepts, Falangism from universal religious imperialism, and Ba'athism from an Arabic anti-imperial vision. These examples demonstrate that Fascism shares a pragmatic basis of ideas, for the specific construction of the ideology in individual nations.

This leads us to the issue of the Right wing's involvement with Fascism. The Right wing has proven to be a flawed ally whenever Fascism seeks to establish itself. They often align with Fascism only when it serves their convenience, but betray the ideology when faced with adversity or when they become disenchanted with revolutionary discourse. The Right wing has demonstrated itself to be as, if not more, detrimental to Fascism than the Left.

The Right wing often embraces Fascism when it aligns with their interests. Julius Evola, for instance, praised Fascism for its potential but did not actively join the cause. A similar pattern emerged in Mussolini's Italy, where liberals and conservatives who had initially joined the Fascist party to counter the Red Terror began to withdraw when Mussolini implemented policies that were anti-right wing. This reveals that for a right winger to truly align with Fascism, they must undergo a genuine conversion, as their presence otherwise risks undermining our ideas.

Many self-proclaimed traditional Catholics who claim to support Fascism often use it as a pretext for promoting unnecessary reactionary tendencies. The reality is that Fascism operates in the ways it does because it seeks to establish Fascism itself, rather than adopting specific methods as an ultimate goal. The same applies to proponents of vulgar anti-fascist White Nationalists. These individuals do not genuinely believe in Fascism; rather, they attempt to exploit "Fascism" as a means to advance their own peculiar policies. Not everyone who claims to be a Fascist or aligns themselves with Fascism truly embodies its principles. In some cases, individuals may identify as Fascists while holding views that are more aligned with classical liberalism or conservative ideology. It is therefore imperative for us to distance ourselves from such individuals.

In reflection, we must ask ourselves a series of important questions:

• Who was responsible for the death of Codreanu?

• Who allowed José Antonio Primo de Rivera to perish?

• Who orchestrated the removal of Mussolini from power?

• Why did Traditionalists, Monarchists, and Conservatives join the partisans?

• Who made multiple attempts to assassinate Hitler?

• Who orchestrated the coup against Perón?

• Who was behind the assassination of Jorge Gaitan?

• Who orchestrated the coup against Marcos Perez Jimenez?

Our focus lies in achieving our desired values, and traditions serve as a means to that end. We do not prioritize your traditions or past values; we are solely committed to establishing the values we seek. If your traditions hinder our goals, they will be adapted or discarded accordingly. That is the essence of our approach. If someone joins Fascism solely to promote racism, reactionary views, homophobia, or to merely oppose liberals, then they have never truly embraced the essence of Fascism.

Now, it is important to acknowledge that not all Fascists fall into this category. However, let us be honest and recognize that some individuals join the Fascist movement without fully understanding or aligning with its principles. Fascism was never intended to be a rigid and dogmatic ideology. It is a concept that allows for relative interpretations. Therefore, if a Fascist nation implements policies that may not align with traditional Fascist principles, they can still be justified as long as they contribute to the ultimate goal. Nevertheless, it is crucial to approach this topic with caution. Just because we acknowledge the flexibility of interpretation does not mean we have to agree with or refrain from criticizing such policies. It is essential to maintain a critical perspective and engage in healthy debates. However, when a Fascist becomes overly fixated on rigid adherence to specific texts or doctrines, such as insisting on following every word Gentile wrote, we must challenge their puritanical mindset. We cannot take their Fascist ideas seriously if they are trapped in a narrow and dogmatic mentality. Embracing diverse perspectives and avoiding excessive intellectualism lie at the core of a proper understanding of Fascist philosophy.

Let us bear this in mind moving forward.

“On page 62 of his exhaustive booklet on ‘contemporary relativists’, Adriano Tilgher thus and too quickly mentions the fascist movement:

‘Below our eyes have seen in Italy, in the sudden collapse of state authority under the proletarian assault, the rise of the fascist movement, proclaiming that the State does not "exist", but is created from time to time by those who believe in it and they want it. Fascism is nothing other than absolute activism transplanted into the terrain of politics.’

The definition is very exact. With this statement, Adriano Tilgher places fascism in the wake of the greatest contemporary philosophies: those of relativity.

If Tilgher had followed closely, on a daily basis, the work of fascism, had he noted the phases of development of the movement and its guiding principles, I say without immodesty that he would have placed me among the relativists, if not theoretical, at least practical.

In Germany, relativism is a very audacious and destructive theoretical construction (perhaps Germany's philosophical revenge, which could herald its military one?); in Italy, it's just a fact. Fascism was a super-relativist movement because it never tried to give a definitive ‘programmatic’ look to its complex and powerful states of mind, but proceeded through intuitions and fragments, documents of which can be found in this newspaper. Everything I have said and done in recent times is relativism by ‘intuition.’ If, in fact, relativism must be understood as the end of scientism, the decline of the myth of ‘science,’ understood as the discoverer of absolute truths, I can boast of having applied this criterion in the examination of the socialist phenomenon. In a speech I gave in Bologna on 3 April 1921, I said that ‘nothing in the world was more grotesque than calling socialism scientific;’ and later, after having denied any truth to the dark, incoherent doctrines of socialism, I denied any character of fatality to the advent of socialism itself.

That the socialists believed for the most varied reasons in the truth and inevitability of socialism is a matter that concerns them, but it was necessary to prevent faith in this truth and inevitability from going beyond the circle of followers of that church. In short, it was necessary to create an anti-truth and an anti-fatality with respect to socialism.

Between these two forces, success is the judge and has judged. Socialists who believe in a truth in itself of socialism, in an ineluctable fatality of socialism, are few, even if they are ashamed to confess it. Nothing proves that capitalism, with the type of civilization that takes shape from it, must necessarily lead to socialism. This succession, which would claim to be natural and logical, is instead purely arbitrary: relativistic criticism has made a clean sweep of this historicist and democratic mentality, whereby history would always be "obvious" in advance and one would always know where men and societies they end up.

It was believed, for example, that war should lead to revolution. The opposite is likely. The political upheavals we have experienced may actually constitute the beginning of a great restoration. With the trial of the ‘citizen,’ the trial of the 19th century takes place. It is not certain that a period of greater freedoms, of greater democracy with related suffragettes is imminent. It is possible that the coming decades will see the inglorious end of all so-called democratic achievements. From the government of the many and all, the extreme ideal of democracy, it is probable that we will return to the government of the few or of just one. In the economy, the experiment of government by the many or all has already failed. In Russia we have returned to factory dictators. Politics cannot be slow to follow the economy. I am not clear about the fate of universal suffrage and related proportionalist administrations. Soon it will be ‘old game.’ Men will perhaps have the vagueness of a dictator.

If relativism is to be understood as the contempt for fixed categories, for men who believe themselves to be bearers of an immortal objective reality, for the static who settle down, instead of tormenting themselves with incessantly renewing. For those who pride themselves on always being the same as themselves, nothing is more relativistic than the fascist mentality and activity. If relativism and universal mobilism are equivalent, we fascists, who have always demonstrated our unscrupulous arrogance in the face of the nominalisms on which the bigots of the other parties nail themselves, like bats to the rafters; we, who have had the courage to shatter all the traditional political categories and to call ourselves alternately aristocrats and democrats, revolutionaries and reactionaries, proletarians and anti-proletarians, pacifists and anti-pacifists, we are truly the relativists par excellence and our action it refers directly to the most current movements of the European spirit.

Our reluctance to force ourselves into a program, even with the understanding that more than a program is a matter of simple points of view of reference and an orientation, our position of agnosticism in the face of the regime, having taken away from the other parties this that we like and benefit us and having rejected what we don't like and harms us, the mockery we make of all the socialist and communist mortgages on the mysterious future, constitute so many documentations of our relativistic mentality. To move forward, we just need a point of reference: the nation. Everything else takes care of itself.

In relativism ‘life and action’ are recognized - says Tilgher - as having an absolute supremacy over intelligence.

From the equivalence of all opinions, the ancient skeptic deduced that, therefore, the only thing to do was to give up judging and acting. From the equivalence of all ideologies, all equally fictions, modern relativism deduces that, therefore, each has the right to create its own and to impose it with all the energy it is capable of. Today's formidable movement which develops relativism and universal skepticism from historicism is, therefore, nothing other than the effort that the profound forces of life, new and therefore revolutionary, compressed by the dominant historicist ideology, which deifies the past, and, in the name of it, negating the future, they do to shake off the iron yoke and open their way to the light.

The Italian fascist phenomenon must appear to Tilgher as the highest and most interesting manifestation of relativistic philosophy; and if, as Wahinger states, relativism goes back to Nietzsche and his Willen zur Macht, Italian fascism was and is the most formidable creation of an individual and national ‘will to power.’”

— Benito Mussolini, Relativism and Fascism, Il Popolo d'Italia, 22 November 1921

It is important to note that Fascism, in its broader sense, should not be confined to the Italian interpretation alone. Fascism, as commonly understood, primarily refers to the Italian manifestation of the ideology. Therefore, if you encounter a party calling itself the Union of American Fascists or something similar, it is likely a group of individuals engaging in role-playing or lacking a deep understanding of the philosophy. A telling example of this can be found in the case of the Mexican Fascist party. A group of Mexicans attempted to establish their own Fascist party, but their efforts were met with criticism and ridicule from Fascist Italy itself. The Italian Fascists viewed the Mexican party as a weak imitation, demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of the core principles of the ideology.

To simplify matters, it is possible to identify oneself as a Fascist or a supporter of Fascism. However, a more accurate term for such individuals would be Third Positionists. This label encompasses a broader spectrum of nationally organic movements that have emerged in various countries, each adapting Fascist ideas to their specific circumstances. This diversity is evident in movements such as Nazism, Fascism, Integralism, Synarchism, Justicialism, Falangism, Ba'athism, Metaxism, the Iron Guard, the Lehi, and many others. Each of these movements represents a unique interpretation of the Third Position, tailored to the particular conditions and requirements of the nation in which they originated.