ATTENTION: There will be no account validations until further notice, maximum till next Monday (May 29th)

OFFICIAL IM STATEMENT REGARDING RECENT EVENTS

Welcome to Iron March Forums

WELCOME TO THE INTERNET'S PREMIUM PURITY SPIRALING WEBSITE
 

"[...] a website dubbed the 'Nazi Facebook'." -The Sun, UK
 

"A shadowy online fascism forum-Boston Metro, USA
 

"[An] international network that promotes race war [...] It boasts hundreds of ultra-radical, dedicated followers around the world -Daily Post, UK
 

"It encourages people to register so they could interact with, quote "fellow fascists" by simply clicking on a swastika -WFTV9(abc) News from Orlando, Florida, USA


Welcome to IRONMARCH.ORG the Online HQ for the IronMarch Global Fascist Fraternity and the Forge of the 21st Century Fascist! Join to network with fellow fascists worldwide, exchange materials, participate in a variety of projects and contribute to the Struggle. IronMarch is not your average forum, please make sure that you have read the following IronMarch threads and materials before registering:

 GAS THE KIKES, RACE WAR NOW, 1488 BOOTS ON THE GROUND! :IMMH:

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Александр Славрос

Anarchy and Totalitarianism

14 posts in this topic

The subject matter here is relevant to a number of previously made topics so instead of trying to choose one of them to put it in I'll make it its own dedicated thread.

 

Preliminary reading for this:

This is just a new narrative I've mulled over to further drive the point home on several aspects presented in those previous topics. If you have noticed we already had gone over Fascism's relationship with Anarchy and Totalitarianism, but this will be the first time that I directly put them side by side to shine more light on the subject of Fascist means to establish a temporal society of Truth.

 

In a way this is the definitive way to designate the difference between the two subgroups relevant to what I defined as Nazi Passion, which is an overt Force Against Time struggle. One of those subgroups I didn't give any name as such while the other one I designated as Futurism. Now I introduce a simpler way of looking at these two subgroups by directly associating them with Anarchy and Totalitarianism.

 

Neither Anarchy nor Totalitarianism are our end goals, but they are a means to an end. Futurism, the path to a Fascist Society through Anarchy, demands the annihilation of the existing temporal social order and its institutions in order to start from scratch so that a more organic rebirth may occur straight through all the natural and organic processes.

 

The other path to a Fascist Society, through Totalitarianism, means utilizing the mechanical state Leviathan in order to create a protective outer shell that would fall away once a new generation has been grown that would by default act according to what was previously enforced by mechanical means of total control. This method neither implies  the need to destroy all existing aspects of social order or its institutions but neither does it call for trying to 'infiltrate' the system. It simply means a social revolution in the common sense of that concept - this is what happened in Italy, Germany and Russia (we're talking about the process here, not who or for what purpose did it).

 

All of this also mimics the understanding of having an Internal and External source of values and discipline. We've gone over how the human condition is a struggle between the True Self and the Body - self discipline, the kind of higher discipline that comes from within, is the result of a strong spirit of the True Self conquering the Body and subjugating it, denying its mere material craves and wants beyond those necessary to keep the Body a functional tool. The other kind of discipline is enforced discipline from without, if the True Self is not strong enough an external force may come in and impose restrictions that are out of one's hands. Christianity, Islam and all religions (i.e. exoteric spiritual teachings) are examples of an external set of rules, morality is also one of those means to impose such order. On the social level this is the Totalitarian Structure. Esoteric spiritual teachings, our worldview, as we have discussed before, internalizes values and allows you to make proactive choices. 

 

As a result Fascism through Anarchy demands even higher standards, because it demands that everyone who become part of the natural restoration process be capable of self discipline, of having their order and control originate from within, otherwise they are worthless and have to be babysat all the time. Thus Fascism through Anarchy can be more radical and does not tolerate weakness, there is no place in the new growing organic state for the old generation of weaklings. 

 

Fascism through Totalitarianism however does allow for the weak average commoner to be part of the Fascist society but he is constantly constrained by the system to make sure he does not in any way cause damage to the restorative process, that he follows the narrow line put in place. The Totalitarian approach is aimed towards securing a new generation that was given the proper education, teachings and understanding that they can carry on without the need for Totalitarian control, and to keep the older generation from interfering with this process while also allowing for them to be part of the system. Once a new generation is raised and the old generation dies out the Totalitarian system may be dismantled.

 

Junger's Anarch once again comes to mind in this situation and a new interpretation (one that is closer to the truth?) of "An Anarch is to the Anarchist what a Monarch is to the Monarchist" arises: the Monarch is the source of external order imposed onto the Monarchist, he needs the Monarch to be his source of order. To the Anarchist (in what is now a far departure from the common notion of what an anarchist is) the Anarch is order internalized, the lack of imposition of order by an outside source, something to be emulated.

 

Now, none of this of course means that this applies to everyone, once again not all people are capable of self-discipline, these are the lower caste people who require the superior castes and the hierarchical structure to exist. We are not talking about how a Fascist society is comprised entirely out of the superior people, but rather that the old generation is rooted in a worldview of Falsehoods, whereas the new generation has to belong to the worldview of Truth. What was said above is but an explanation of how Fascists would operate to establish a Fascist society by either of those two paths. So in the case of Fascism through Anarchy you can still have the lesser caste people in the process of growing a new society but their strength comes from accepting their place in it. In Fascism through Totalitarianism you can have the lesser caste people but not all of them are accepting of the Truth, i.e. the old generation is still present in this system.

 

Thus to us Fascists Anarchy and Totalitarianism are means to an end, transitional states, much like how Marx believed in the need of Socialism before you could achieve Communism. To us Fascists we need to first create Anarchy or Totalitarianism before we can grow an Organic Society. The first allows for greater freedom of action, the latter is more merciful towards preserving some elements of our temporal past.

12 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those are some damn accurate characterizations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People in modern society, especially American society are starved of purpose and ritual even though that openly scorn such things as meaningless.

 

Fascism through Anarchy(Futurism) offers the chance for the individual to become a building block for a greater society simply by improving himself first.

 

As it necessitates that he conquers the rot within himself that modern civilization has either infected him with or not prepared him to fight against, or even that he should, of course as we know it often ecourages people to speed up the spread the infection so that everyone becomes equal in their collective sickness.

 

It is an exciting and liberating idea.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that the Futurist route is the only logical process to take to get to the Fascist society that we seek. Anarchism as talked about in the thread is much more logical path than to try and build off a fundamentally poisoned system.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wanted to add some thoughts that I had while traveling recently that fit into the Futurism concept that I think can clear things up for those who don't understand it fully yet.

A decent analogy that I came up with goes as follows;

 

You would not want to build the foundation and woodwork of a house out wood that is half eaten by termites or decayed.

 

It makes me think of that thing Abraham Lincoln said: "A house divided against itself cannot stand." (Which ultimately came from a bible verse), it is interesting because what if there was never a house that was able to stand? Why build a flimsy house when you can build a castle? 

tumblr_loghheKduG1qgrl53.jpg

 

What is the point of building a house that is easily corrupted by outside influences due to its founding nature?

Something new must be made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So when do we get Max Stirner quotes in the forum header rotation

 

Whoever will be free must make himself free. Freedom is no fairy gift to fall into a man's lap. What is freedom? To have the will to be responsible for one's self.

 

To understand oneself does not seem to be the everyman's concern.

 

If one awakens in men the idea of freedom then the free men will incessantly go on to free themselves; if on the contrary, one only educates them, then they will at all times accommodate themselves to circumstance in the most highly educated and elegant manner and degenerate into subservient cringing souls.

 

He who is infatuated with Man leaves persons out of account so far as that infatuation extends, and floats in an ideal, sacred interest. Man, you see, is not a person, but an ideal, a spook.

 

Liberty of the people is not my liberty!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Celery, I'd like to know why my suggestion of Chairman Mao's famous quote was never put in the header, maybe it was too edgy. Anyway this is all off topic babble, at least from my right now.

 

Anyway, a big problem with newly redpilled people, often if they are American is that they want to try and build off of what the Founding Fathers did, and in some cases that makes a bit of sense, I see why the do that because Americans see them as their deepest ancestors and fail to look just a step further to the ways of mother Europe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, a big problem with newly redpilled people, often if they are American is that they want to try and build off of what the Founding Fathers did, and in some cases that makes a bit of sense, I see why the do that because Americans see them as their deepest ancestors and fail to look just a step further to the ways of mother Europe.

 

That's the difference between the redpill and the ironpill. Besides, redpilled in which respect? Race? Jews? Yeah, when somebody has their awakening their first reaction is normally to align themselves with some democratic/ moderate/ intellectual/ stormfront tier group. It's only the best of the redpills who learn more and mentally transgress modernity entirely, who into fascisms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyway, a big problem with newly redpilled people, often if they are American is that they want to try and build off of what the Founding Fathers did, and in some cases that makes a bit of sense, I see why the do that because Americans see them as their deepest ancestors and fail to look just a step further to the ways of mother Europe.

 

This is a problem all colonials have to deal with- your country is basically artificial so what aspects of it are you fighting to preserve? And if you hark back to traditions or some past Golden Age, then which source do you draw on for those- your (young) country's past or its earlier roots in Europe? Which is more valid/relevant for your people, and which will ensure their continuation rather than be a hindrance? There's a real issue for us in reconciling fascism with the fact that our countries are artificial & were typically founded on ideals antithetical to it, with America's situation being the kind of archetypal poster child for this dilemma. It's one I thought we could get around through mythmaking (cherry-picking from the past) but I've not been so sure recently, though the ideas in this thread have got me thinking that maybe this actually an opportunity rather than a problem. Australia for instance is barely a century old, our cultural foundations and established traditions are weak- this almost seems to be ideal for the Anarchistic approach. The system is less established, peoples' ties to it are much weaker, what there is of it is now so completely bound up with multiculturalism and liberal values that our arguments regarding its lack of validity are made much stronger. We don't have as much of a past to draw on and our past was mostly shit anyway- the system is rotten and has always been rotten- so why not sweep away what little we do have and start again? If you think about it this way then our lack of history/traditions etc. are actually an advantage. Tactically this is pretty radical, it's probably a harder sell for a lot of people still mired in traditional concepts of what nationalism/patriotism is, but- it's much more appealing to committed idealists/radicals, and undoes a lot of the mental gymnastics you need to perform in making fascism gel to what little exists of your country's history. Good food for thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a problem all colonials have to deal with- your country is basically artificial so what aspects of it are you fighting to preserve? And if you hark back to traditions or some past Golden Age, then which source do you draw on for those- your (young) country's past or its earlier roots in Europe? Which is more valid/relevant for your people, and which will ensure their continuation rather than be a hindrance? There's a real issue for us in reconciling fascism with the fact that our countries are artificial & were typically founded on ideals antithetical to it, with America's situation being the kind of archetypal poster child for this dilemma. It's one I thought we could get around through mythmaking (cherry-picking from the past) but I've not been so sure recently, though the ideas in this thread have got me thinking that maybe this actually an opportunity rather than a problem. Australia for instance is barely a century old, our cultural foundations and established traditions are weak- this almost seems to be ideal for the Anarchistic approach. The system is less established, peoples' ties to it are much weaker, what there is of it is now so completely bound up with multiculturalism and liberal values that our arguments regarding its lack of validity are made much stronger. We don't have as much of a past to draw on and our past was mostly shit anyway- the system is rotten and has always been rotten- so why not sweep away what little we do have and start again? If you think about it this way then our lack of history/traditions etc. are actually an advantage. Tactically this is pretty radical, it's probably a harder sell for a lot of people still mired in traditional concepts of what nationalism/patriotism is, but- it's much more appealing to committed idealists/radicals, and undoes a lot of the mental gymnastics you need to perform in making fascism gel to what little exists of your country's history. Good food for thought.

 

This is only really a big problem if you view nationhood in the modern, statist sense; but if one views a nation as a continual group or sort of meta-bloodline over the centuries, then it isn't so limiting: I personally don't feel at all limited to America or it's founders; I have many more illustrious ancestors and heroes to draw inspiration from, as does anyone of proper European blood. This is actually a major part of traditional identity that has been turned against us by the Jews; note their intense tribalism even over centuries of stateless existence, and with far less worthy tradition to draw from at that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is only really a big problem if you view nationhood in the modern, statist sense; but if one views a nation as a continual group or sort of meta-bloodline over the centuries, then it isn't so limiting: I personally don't feel at all limited to America or it's founders; I have many more illustrious ancestors and heroes to draw inspiration from, as does anyone of proper European blood. This is actually a major part of traditional identity that has been turned against us by the Jews; note their intense tribalism even over centuries of stateless existence, and with far less worthy tradition to draw from at that.

 

I agree with this; this conception of identity is one I came to through Iron March, and it makes a lot more sense to draw from this than to be limited by boundaries already set by currently-existing artificial nation-states, which as you've said are divisive. It also has the advantage of being broader, not confined solely to an identity drawn from a single specific European ethnic group, which is an advantage in colonial countries. I like the idea that we're fighting to tear down rotten existing temporal systems, to completely replace them with something modern- but something that still draws from an identity and core values with roots in the past/Old World. It's more appealing than trying to reconcile our worldview and identities with specific elements from Australia's personal history, which I attempted in a recent thread. The issue for me though is in selling this form of identity- it's fairly esoteric and so might not be as immediately appealing for a lot of people whose nationalism is more 'mundane'. You of course need quality over quantity, and the right kind of people will mesh with this idea naturally, but your ideas still need to be broadly accessible. The British NF found in the 80s/90s that it was a lot tougher to recruit when it moved away from conventional politics and towards a 'political soldier' strategy; trying to reconcile our ideals with the stupidity of the average person is always at the back of my mind whenever I'm considering how to put what I've learnt on IM into practice.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

GLOBAL
FASCIST FRATERNITY

IRONPRIDE
NETWORK

FASCIST
ALMA MATER

FORGE OF THE
21st CENTURY FASCIST