TradYouth: The Face of American Fascism

George Lincoln Rockwell

George Lincoln RockwellThe past is dead. Let it go.

That fabled “1950s America” which conservatives dream about is exactly that– a dream. It came, it went, and unless you’re more than 70 years old you probably don’t know the first thing about it. We cannot recreate some fabled past, but we can work at creating something beneficial and meaningful for ourselves and the people around us.

If you find yourself pining for days gone by, just stop it! The past is dead. It’s gone. It cannot be recreated. It is in the past, let it go.

The works of man will always turn to dust and even names are forgotten in time, but the values of Tradition are timeless and will outlive the short life of a man. Only by adhering to the timeless and indomitable spirit of Traditionalism can you create a political institution which serves to protect the identity and heritage of a people.

Barone Giulo Cesare Andrea Evola, or just Julius Evola for short, was an Italian philosopher and esotericist. He wrote extensively on the issues of Traditionalism and fascism, and he thoroughly rejected the notion of being a conservative. The reactionarymodus operandi of the contemporary conservative and American patriot is perpetually responing to something which has already happened.

Illegal immigration is out of control! Let’s join the Klan!
A communist Kenyan is occupying the White House! Let’s join the TEA Party!
Immorality and degeneracy are out of control! We have to take back America!

The motive and passion behind such choices are right and good, but they all are purelyreactionary. To do one thing in response to something else that has already occurred is the textbook definition of being conservative. There is nothing appealing about being on the far side of the diffusion curve.

Playing “catch up” is a losing game. The only way to win the game is to stop playing defense and start going on the attack. In short, if you want to win you have to do something original. Conservatism is a losing game, but revolution is a winning plan. Keep the passion of conservatism, but take on the spirit of revolution.

Take Evola’s advice and be a revolutionary conservative. Clinging to our guns and Bibles is commendable, but it is wholly defensive in nature. The only way to win the game is to stop guarding your guns and Bible and start using them.

As Evola explained, The only authentic conservatism must be revolutionary.

“For the authentic revolutionary conservative, what really counts is to be faithful not to past forms and institutions, but rather to principles of which such forms and institutions have been particular expressions.”

In this case, form follows function. If the function of our political and religious institutions is to protect our faith, race and nation, then the form of that political and religious institution will reflect that. The form will, of course, be composed of the people who embody those values.

At times we might wax romantic about a recreation or rebirth of the Third Reich, but this is folly. The Third Reich was a uniquely German institution which served the interests of Germans at a specific time in history. Alternately, we give great fanfare to the more recent events in Russia’s social-political scene. Again, the political institution as it exists in Russia is unique to the social-political conditions which the Russian people confront daily.

Americans must not be German nationalists nor Russian nationalists, and if we are to see the growth of American fascism, we must be American nationalists. We must apply the spirit of conservatism and Traditionalism in our own lives so as to synthesize a truly American fascism.

Evola defines conservatism as having the same spirit as Traditionalism, saying that, “Tradition is neither servile conformity to what has been, nor a sluggish perpetuation of the past into the present. Tradition, in it’s essence, is something simultaneously meta-historical and dynamic: it is an overall ordering force, in the service of principles that have the chrism of a superior legitimacy.”

Tradition is a value based lifestyle, and not one driven by fetishistic desires for a specific form or aesthetic appearance of a government body.

Don’t be a fascist because you want to feel or look powerful and intimidating, be a fascist because it’s an authentic expression of your values and convictions. The only way to be a fascist is to faithfully embody those values which are responsible for producing true fascism.

Dressing up in costumes and pretending to be a legitimate continuation or faithful re-creation of famed fascist governments or societies from the past is the highest form of flattery, but it is also an insult to the true spirit of fascism.

A reporter once asked me if I was a fascist. I won’t reject the title, but if I truly am a fascist then I hope it is because I have earned that title without disrespecting the true spirit of fascism and its noble ideals.

I do occasionally wax romantic about European fascism, but it is ultimately a distraction. If I am to be honored with the title of being a fascist, then let me be called an American Fascist. The face of American Fascism must be comprised solely of Americans who are fighting for an American future, and it is that vision of an American identity which we must embrace.

The good news is that the vision for an American future is already here, and it is calledTradYouth. We are the face of American Fascism, and we are the future you have been waiting for.

21 Comments

Jeremy Janson

You clearly don’t understand Fascism, because if they did, you would know that America already has a Fascist party. You might have heard of them – they’re called the Democrats and they’re doing quite well.

kennewick-man

Jeremy, I suspect you are taking a one-dimensional view of Fascism as a collectivist philosophy, which it is. Like the Democrats, Fascist governments dealt with people as members of groups. However, Fascism is a palingenetic philosophy, which means it seeks a rebirth of the ancient virtues of the nation, sort of like the Tea Party. The Democrats, on the other hand, use a coalition of groups such as blacks, feminists, and homosexuals to destroy whatever remains of tradition. They pitted union labor against capitalists to gain political power, and in the process destroyed both. The symbol of Fascism is the fasces, a bundle of sticks. The sticks when bound together are far stronger than the individual sticks. Had the Democrats been Fascists, they would have worked for compromise between labor and capital where both could have survived.

Jeremy Janson

@Kennewick_man: While I understand where you are coming from, do keep in mind that Hitler kept a cadre of Nazi homosexuals until he was powerful enough to dispose of them. Likewise, the city of San Francisco is now starting to destroy the same “counterculture” elements that destroyed its original society, using various city ordinances that destroy the exact same behaviors that made them famous, in order to pave way for their original Fascist goal of a perfect society. Meanwhile, the Democrats both simultaneously tell and give those groups you describe what they want while using birth control and abortion to quietly kill their number, in part by the utility of their alliance with homosexuals. It is true that the Democrats are exceptionally more politically brilliant than the original Fascists, much smoother operators, which is to be expected from 70 additional years of careful study and the examples of Fascism failed to learn from, but this does not mean they are substantially different.

CPL M

Jeremy, I don’t know what corner of the internet you read what you’re spewing or maybe it’s just your hours listening Glen Beck’s mental retardation but calling the Democrats fascists is the stupidest thing I ever heard. Fascism is opposed to both liberalism and Marxism, something the DNC has in abundance. If you had read a book that was actual history rather than propaganda, y’know a book that wasn’t promoted on FOXNews, you would’ve realized this.

kennewick-man

My apologies, Jeremy. I come across people who see all collectivists of any type or degree as equivalent, with no thought as to their philosophy or actions.

I wonder if the Democrats of San Francisco have had everything planned out as you suggest, or if they are being affected by the dysfunctional behaviors they previously applauded. However cultural Marxism is a long term project run by Jews, who are able to work for decades on a plan, so there might be something to what you are saying.

Franco was a Falangist, and merged the Falange, which I would see as a Fascist movement, with the Carlists, who are traditionalist Catholics. And I think Mussolini was in some ways a traditionalist. He believed women’s role was childbearing, and was opposed to employment for women. He also opposed homosexuality.

Robert Pinkerton

Because my understanding of fascism is harmonious collaboration between the social classes, my reason for rejecting fascism is my belief that the bourgeoisie jointly and individual bourgeoises severally, cannot be trusted to collaborate in good faith.

Jeremy Janson

Not only do they collaborate in a Fascist society, but in practice, they dominate it. Every Fascist society that has ever existed, even when it claimed otherwise, came to be entirely ruled by its bourgeois. That’s why the bourgeois love Fascism so much.

It should be noted, however, that contrary to popular myth, neither Pinochet nor Franco were Fascists. Both Franco and Pinochet were authoritarian conservatives of a Catholic bend.

Jeremy Janson

THIS is what Fascism is actually about, and by the way, Mussolini was an avid reader and admirer of Marinetti: http://vserver1.cscs.lsa.umich.edu/~crshalizi/T4PM/futurist-manifesto.html “We want to demolish museums and libraries, fight morality, feminism and all opportunist and utilitarian cowardice.” (Article 10)

Fascism is brought to you by the same people who bring you modern art, nihilism, “green energy” and eugenics – there is nothing even remotely traditionalist or conservative about it.

Leslie H. Higgins

NOW, I don’t think you can equate fascism with futurism. These days, the only futurist I know of still operating on the Right is Constantin von Hoffmeister, and the only nationalist who works with or respects him is Norman Lowell. We don’t need to worry about it.

You may be right that fascism was a tad Heraclitean and aggressive for the needs of our context, but your claim that fascism, whatever its influences, can be associated with modern art and nihilism belies the great monuments in Italy still standing from the fascist era.

http://confessionsvelvetropes.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451e09969e2011572345fd5970b-500wi

Modern?

John McNeill

I think you guys are making a mistake in openly embracing the fascist label. I get why you guys are attracted to some fascist ideas, but I think branding yourselves as “American fascists” will detract from the cause of advancing nationalism and traditionalism. I also think that fascist politics won’t align with the individualist nature of white Americans, and that’s why an American nationalist movement must find harmony with American individualism.

Matt Parrott

It’s a pivotal question, and I encourage a complete discussion on it.

Personally, I’m increasingly inclined to reject and resist “individualism” as a shoddy foundation upon which our anti-identity was constructed. At best, I see it as a collective character defect to be coped with and worked around rather than a feature worthy of celebrating, cherishing, or preserving.

Regarding the wisdom of endorsing the label “fascist”, the other comments confirm the obvious: It’s pretty much been reduced to a generic slander to be deployed against opponents, rather than a descriptive term for a vague collection of ideas and influences. That being said, my preferred method of dealing with labels is to either ignore them or even embrace them rather than allow ourselves to be bogged down in an argument over whether or not we’re “racist” or “fascist” or “patriarchal” or whatever.

Sadly, much of the movement’s work amounts to doing exactly that, desperately striving to prove we’re not this or that label. Even if you win, you’ve still lost, because you allowed the enemy to write the rules for the game. It’s a game in which the best possible (if improbable) outcome is the spectators concluding that you’re not an evil person hellbent on doing bad things.

Leslie H. Higgins

If you find yourself pining for days gone by, just stop it! The past is dead. It’s gone. It cannot be recreated. It is in the past, let it go.

I suspect the 1950s will be of more use to us in some decades, when all those with living memory are gone, and they become a more helpful inspiring myth.

As it is, I don’t doubt we can fit white picket fences into the White future.

John

Thank you Leslie. I am a young student looking to make a break into politics after the end of my schooling. I have Fascist beliefs in many areas. Although I purposely disguise them as being beliefs of a Conservative Liberal. As I know Americans won’t have a good response to a politican being labeled Facist. Im happy to hear you say what you did about the 1950s, because I frequently use that decade as a model of what America should be. I explain when I am peruading people, that the 1950s was a time when American culture the most distinct from the rest of the world and how much we were envied by other nations. I try not to sound too radical for the average American therefore I do get a lot of people to believe in my political platform. I generally tell people I’m like a Eisenhower Republican or a Kennedy Democrat. But the political party I officially affiliate with is the Democratic Party. As I believe Kennedy is a better leader to associate with on account of his charisma. On the charismatic side for Republicans, I believe that Regan was a terrible President only good in matters of forigen policy. I believe modern Republicans are idiots for worshiping that man. That’s why I cannot have a connection with the Republican party.

PalmettoPatriot

lol…. ‘America’ is most certainly not a nation (it’s an excellent example of an anti-national empire) in any real ethno/cultural sense. And fascism is definitely not the future – it is the past. I see that TradYouth uses the top half of Alexander Dugin’s symbol for Eurasianism and/or The Fourth Political Theory. I would advise actually reading Dugin. He makes it quite clear in easy-to-read English (even if his spoken English is much more difficult) that fascism was a pretender to the throne of Modernity along with Communism and it lost that struggle. Liberalism prevailed. It defeated all competitors. We are now living in Post-Modernity where liberal values are hegemonic. Our struggle is to destroy Post-Modernity; to ensure it dies and is replaced with something better. That something better will not be one of the defeated ideologies of Modern era which (falsely, as it turned out) claimed to be the most Modern of the ideologies of that age.

Lew

Dugin has an Russian neo-imperialism agenda 100 miles long. Everything that he writes about fascism must be taken with a pound of salt. Even if you don’t believe that, it’s still possible Dugin like anyone can right about some things and wrong about others.

Shotgun

Many Americans might take this article like a bad Febreze commercial: we’re blindfolded and asked to sniff the fresh air of ‘traditionalism’, but the whole time we’ve had our noses in the nasty crotch of a whorish political system. It’s all deep breaths and sighs until the blind fold comes off, then it’s “uhhhs” and “err ma gerrsshhh”.

There’s no connection made between ‘traditionalism’ and ‘fascism’ here. It’s simply implied in a dream-like way; to add further difficulty, we all know how notoriously ambiguous the word ‘fascism’ can be.

I think the best overall statement of it was given by John T. Flynn in his classic book “As We Go Marching”, who characterized ‘economic fascism’ in four main ways. None of which can fairly describe the Trad Youths.

1. The support of a welfare state, or a spending / borrowing government, which expends huge amounts on social welfare programs.

This might describe some in the Trad Youth, but it certainly hasn’t been prominent (even if it was prominent, this wouldn’t be in keeping with traditional American individualism and good ol’ Yankee ingenuity – various aspects of the protestant work ethic which define the blue collar folk of America. Trad Youth will have difficulty reaching these people in the name of a “tradtion” that isn’t all that traditional in America).

2. Support of militarism as an economic institution, ie: the military industrial complex, especially as a way of stimulating the economy. And this leads to …

3. Imperialism – which goes hand in hand with militarism. (Global military adventurism).

In both 2, and 3, we’ve seen Trad Youth rhetoric directly opposed to the main points – especially their recent, and very public, petitioning of the Syrian war effort.

And finally 4: a planned economy.

Concerning 4, I’ve not heard much from Trad Youth one way or the other, but they might accept some form of central planning or nationalized banking.

Does two out of three make a “fascist”?

kennewick-man

I’m not familiar with Flynn, and don’t know what examples he bases his statements on. Perhaps NS Germany and Fascist Italy? Peron’s Argentina I’m not very familiar with, but I’m not aware of Imperialism on their part. Franco’s Spain started out with a lot of difficulties from an extremely destructive civil war, the general bad conditions in Europe during WWII, and ostracism afterward due to their Axis association. They suffered from beaureaucracy and poverty until they managed to carry out some economic reforms, then did pretty well, according to http://countrystudies.us/spain/51.htm. Again, no Imperialism that I’m aware of.

I think Singapore, and also Taiwan and Korea in the past, although the latter two seem to have liberalized, are also examples of economically successful third positionist or Fascist states. All three have government involvement in economic planning, and strong military for their size, but none are involved in military adventurism or imperialism. All three exist with very real threats that require a strong military. I’m the most familiar with Singapore. There is a fair amount of economic control, with the government sometimes setting up strategic companies, but people are encouraged to start businesses, large or small. One interesting regulation is that taxi drivers must be married men, and I there’s a minimum age, maybe something like 40. This has two purposes, to provide more employment to men to support families, and to make women passengers safer. Singapore does have a sort of welfare state, with most people living in government housing, and small payments available to elderly or disabled who don’t have family to support them, but they typically balance their budget. I don’t know that they ever have a deficit. There is pretty much full employment.

Shotgun

Hey Kman, thanks for the reply.

Sounds like you’ve some particular notion of ‘fascism’ I don’t quite understand; can you expound on it? From what you’ve said, I gather you mean some sort of generalized central economic planning scheme – and if that’s so, then you could point to every modern nation in the west as a paradigm case.

As a matter of fact, it’s popular for the Austrian School economists to critique these Keynesian-esque establishments as ‘fascist’, although, again, the ambiguity of the word must be taken into account. And if that’s all we’re after, then John F. Kennedy was as much a fascist hero as Franco (neither of which would be universally recognized as ‘fascist’ in the first place).

I’ve publicly called myself a ‘fascist’, and in light of certain caveats, I think I can fairly label myself as one – (at least to the degree that a monarchist or an antebellum Southron might be labeled fascist). But if ‘fascism’ means fiat money, inflationary spending, central planning, and an unGodly imposition of certain moral norms (norms which God’s law does not permit the government to enforce), then I’m certainly *not* one…no matter how well the system is supposedly working.

And on that last note, I think rumors of the success of these sorts of systems is highly overrated, especially when current economic situations (ie: bubbles on the brink of bursting, inflation, etc.) are taken into account.

Further – I despise egalitarianism and cannot countenance any economic system based on the idea that all men deserve a particular amount of property, just because they’re men. On that note, a “job” isn’t the end-all be-all of happiness. Rather, I agree with the anti-federalists, the Jeffersonians, and the Southern Agrarians, that it’s the quality of the job, its ability to satisfy, and its liberating effect (I mean: it’s ability to liberate the man from wage slavery) that is truly important. What does it matter if national unemployment is at 2 percent, if everyone is digging ditches?

kennewick-man

Your first post was on “economic fascism,” and maybe that’s the start of the problem, because while it may be at least partly in response to economic pain, fascism starts with a desire for a national rebirth, not just a better economy. This is in contrast to Marxism and classical liberalism, that are more focused on the material. If you go down to the “slogans section here, there’s a mural “We dream of a Roman Italy” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_fascism
and none of the slogans have anything to do with economics. In Fascism economics is a means, to build up families and the nation. I’ll try to write a little more later.

Shotgun

Thanks for clarifying.

Would you say that any attempt to build up families and or the nation (I’m assuming, by “nation” you mean an ethnic body) is “fascism” ?

kennewick-man

The Austrian School folks, thinking in terms of economics, will consider anyone using 1930’s economics ideas as Fascists. Fascist states are supposed to be totalitarian, in the sense that they include all citizens. All the sticks are bound together in the fasces. This leads to a sort of egalitarianism, in that every citizen is valued, just for being a part of the nation. I don’t think that’s equivalent to “all men are created equal.” If distributism can be enacted, so that everyone has land, they still have to work the land. To me the problem would be how to get there. Anyway it seems to me far preferable to dependance on ebt or charity, or starvation. Another problem would be to decide who is a part of the nation.

I have had reservations about fiat currency, but I think it can work as long as the issuing government has the self discipline not to expand it faster than the economy grows. And I think some level of central planning is probably a good thing. If I were given the power, I would work to build up industries by limiting trade, which I suppose would be central planning. One would have to decide what tariffs should be imposed on and how much.

Anyway it’s probably more helpful to think about what ideas or policies from Fascism or similar systems, such as Franco’s Spain, can be useful to us, than what exactly constitutes Fascism. And I want to read some on Southern Agrarianism.

Leave a Reply