This is a discussion by two National Conservatives, one of Quincy Institute's favorite NatCons, far-right Emily Jashinsky, and her far-right comrade, Mary Harrington. I'm sharing it for an example of Fascist Weltanschauung Kampf, or, Kulturkampf, both in their projection of that on to the "Left," which it is true is engaged in this also, and has been since Antonio Gramsci adopted Italy's Fascist Kulturkampf theory, for the Left's use, leading to "Cultural Marxism." But "Cultural Fascism" was there first, and never relinquished ownership of this theory/practice, whether possessed by Hitler, Franco, Pinochet, or Willmoore Kendall, and his fellow fascist "Culture Warriors," Buckley,Burnham, Richard Weaver, and later, John P. East, M.E. Bradford, and Sam Francis. All celebrants of the Martial Virtues "which honours justice, freedom, morality and honour," with each defined as how it serves militarism, as those celebrated Southern virtues were also defined, as they all made clear. What Harrington lays out in this discussion is the theory of Weltanschauung propaganda, of controlling the narrative, meaning to revise history to how it best serves the propaganda objective of the moment, with the two of them doing what they're describing in their discussion in projecting it on to the so-called Left, though acknowledging that was what Carlson/Cooper were doing. So the question arise, who benefits? If promoting the New Right/NatCons and their Oligarchical backers, and fascist ideology, it's self-evident why they want to normalize and legitimize prior fascist movements. But this was a giant step forward, or backward, depending on your Weltanschauung, as celebrating Hitler himself goes way beyond even Carl Schmitt, and tells you how unconstrained they now are with success of the "Fascist Revolution" so near at hand now, with it accomplished in Israel, and soon to be joined by Trump/Vance USA. If the fascist right would stop expropriating historical symbols for their own use, there would be less need to change terms, as they criticize discuss here with "Anglo-Saxon." A term which Teddy Roosevelt first put to use as a proto-fascist U.S. Imperialist in claiming the English, and thus, Americans, the Anglo-Saxons, were the true inheritors of "Teutonic blood," as justification for US expansionism and ultra-militarism. My "liberal antiwar" friends, don't get this as when they hear someone like Tucker Carlson criticize the war in Ukraine and assume he must be on "our side," without realizing that's only for the expedience of the higher priority of getting Trump elected. Nor do they make the connection that Carlson can't promote the Heritage Foundation, as he does, and simultaneously be for "Peace." I shared an article by Mary Harrington yesterday, and included this link in it: And this quote from it: "Adolf Hitler devoted considerable attention in his writings and speeches to the role of worldview (Weltanschauung) in the functioning and ultimate success of National Socialism. ‘Every worldview’, he wrote in Mein Kampf, Here is a bit more from it. The article is lengthy and delves into religion too much, which is irrelevant to "Fascist Weltanschauung," except for it to be ultimately suppressed, if "outside the State," as this article points out. But that isn't my point here so for brevity, I left that out. But here are some relevant quotes going to the "New Right/National Conservative/Fascist Weltanschauung Kampf, or, Kulturkampf, they're waging against us, to instill their fascist worldview in us all. Funded by the likes of various Oligarchs who will be the new Rulers, directly, or through NatCon proxies. It's all been laid out for all to see, if they have their eyes open, which few have. But that is what the Carlson/Cooper interview was about, to "Make Fascism Great Again!" ". . . The first factor was that the nationalist right was a relative latecomer to the discourse on worldview, which meant Hitler had no clear model of what a right-wing ‘worldview party’ would consist.31 Chauvinistic pressure groups and disparate völkisch associations in the late Wilhelmine period had bandied about the term, yet, it was only with the First World War that many on the right began to claim that German nationalism itself had, or should have, a worldview. Symptomatic of this trend was the declaration by Wilhelm II to his General Staff in June 1918 that the nation was engaged not in a military struggle, but in ‘a war of two worldviews’, in which ‘either the Prussian-German-Germanic worldview (preußisch-deutsch-germanische Weltanschauung), which honours justice, freedom, morality and honour, shall remain or else the Anglo-Saxon [worldview], which means: succumbing to the idolatry of money.’ This speech continued but also inverted the logic of one of the Kaiser's most successful public speeches, given at the outset of the war, in which he had declared: ‘I no longer recognize parties or confessions’.32 Whereas the first speech appeared to end the anticatholic Kulturkampf, the second suggested the opening of a new, antisemitic Kulturkampf, at least that was the conclusion drawn by the Pan-German League.33 Given the still inchoate nature of conservative worldview talk at the end of the war, it is not surprising that an activist seeking to make his mark in the consolidating reactionary milieu might develop an awareness of the openness of the term at that historical conjuncture. A second factor conducive to Hitler's self-reflection was his position as an agitator. Hitler claimed to have ‘won a founded worldview’ prior to entering politics. In Mein Kampf he invoked a traditional Christian conversion narrative to describe the moment around 1909 when the ‘scales fell from [his] eyes’ and he accepted the antisemitic worldview and ‘was able to understand everything with it'.34 Most historians, however, doubt the veracity of this account.35 Ian Kershaw has argued that the consolidation of Hitler's worldview probably occurred in spring 1919 in response to the Bavarian council revolution and was projected backwards in order to give Hitler's claims to prophetic inspiration a clear narrative. According to Thomas Weber, the elements of völkisch thought that Hitler had been cobbling together during an army propaganda course fused under the shock caused by the terms of the Treaty of Versailles announced in July 1919.36 If these dates are correct and Hitler's ideals gained coherence at roughly the same time that he began to agitate in public, then the relationship between belief and action needs to be understood dialectically. Whatever the origins of his ideas may have been, he developed them into a worldview in the performative context of agitation. The meeting hall served as a laboratory for experimentation in which Hitler tested his message in front of a live crowd. The resulting reflections on the relationship between the would-be prophet and his audience found their way into his theory of worldview.37 A third factor that accounts for Hitler's unique perspective was the relationship he saw between worldview and truth. He told the National Socialist Party Congress in September 1933 that worldview ‘can be correct or false’, the important thing is that it corresponds to the interests of the individual who articulates it.38 Rather than providing an accurate understanding of the laws of nature, worldview merely had to help the individual succeed in a world governed by these laws. Its suitability was determined ex post facto, that is, by the outcome of the Darwinian struggle for existence. This marked a significant departure from the epistemological grounding of worldview operative in the Catholic or socialist camps, which held their respective worldviews to be rooted in Biblical revelation or the scientific observation of social and biological reality.39 In other words, whether revealed by God, nature or history, the shared assumption was that worldviews were founded upon an essential truth. When Hitler claimed that worldview and truth were not identical, he was not expressing a relativist viewpoint, such as that put forward in 1920 by philosopher Heinrich Rickert, who argued that worldviews were essentially expressions of the shared values of a group.40 For Hitler, worldview spoke not to the values or culture of a people but to their common biological disposition (Veranlagung).41 This racial disposition, he claimed, admittedly vaguely, originated in divine providence. Worldview enabled a race to reach forward to the fulfilment of its purpose, or as Hitler often said, its ‘mission’ (Sendung) in history.42 The origins of this theory likely lay in Hitler's readings of völkisch pamphlet literature,43 however it does not follow that Hitler considered völkisch ideology the only _expression_ of the racial Veranlagung of the German people. Such ideas were useless, he claimed, if they did not move the masses. The purpose of worldview was not to help individuals achieve objective self-consciousness or a true understanding of the world, but rather to unify a collective and give it the ability to act. (TP-Or nation, or both, as with Yoram Hazony, and the Jewish Nation of Israel." . . . Where worldview failed to mobilize, it had to be modified. Hitler applied this aesthetic test to völkisch teaching itself. Unlike some of his more zealous lieutenants, such as Heinrich Himmler and Alfred Rosenberg, Hitler side-lined völkisch culture wherever it threatened to limit the growth of the movement. He repeatedly made contemptuous remarks about the ‘Wotan worshippers’ in the party, and in 1927 removed the outspoken völkisch ideologue, Artur Dinter, from his position as Gauleiter.44 When it came to worldview, Hitler wrote, ‘everything is to be measured and used or discarded according to its utility. In this way, theory cannot calcify into a deadly doctrine, given that everything is to serve life.’ At its core, Hitler claimed for his faith ‘only one doctrine: people (Volk) und fatherland (Vaterland)’.45 This claim clearly indicates that racial theory was a cornerstone of Hitler's worldview. However, in light of our analysis, it also needs to be understood as a statement about the primacy of the audience that worldview was meant to unite. |
|
|
Join the discussion