• Spenser Goode

A Defense of Traditionalism and Fascism


I’ve decided to write this note for various reasons, mainly the following:

1. To set right and dispel certain misconceptions.

2. To sort out and explain my seemingly sudden switch from Leftist to “Right Wing” politics.

3. To dispel the practically meaningless accusation of Anti-Semitism.

It is not my intent to offend with this note, however I have found myself reluctant to post certain things for fear of doing exactly that, which is somewhat silly given that those I am worried of offending are not known to me in real life, so perhaps it may also function as a psychological excorcism of sorts.

Now then, let us begin by putting the terms Traditionalism and Fascism into context. Traditionalism for our purposes may be defined as the view that Tradition, embodied in the philosophical systems and value patterns of the past in relation to society, in preserving the transcendent rather than the modern and earth-bound fads of the present, are best suited to raising man up above various social and spiritual ills. These may be reflected in traditional gender roles, the preservation of culture and heritage, the preservation and promotion of the traditional family unit, and the preservation and cherishing of spirituality and religiousness against meaningless consumerism and materialism.

Fascism, in the context with which I use the term, refers to the system first embodied in Italy during the reign of Benito Mussolini, as well as Integralism and Falangism in Brazil and Spain respectively, and finally in the thought of Sir Oswald Mosley of Britain. It does denote Nationalism, collectivism, and the putting into office of a strong leader who directs the collective for the betterment of his citizens. It does NOT denote racism, imperialism, National Socialism, etc. But why Nationalism, you might ask? In an interview on the Frost Programme, a talk show from Britain, conducted in the 1960’s, Sir Oswald Mosley defended the comment that he was “against aliens” by stating his position that as long as British citizens are without ample housing foreigners should not be brought in to settle there. Unfortunately today, due to binary thinking, such a thought is automatically shot down as being racist. And indeed, certain people who hold Nationalist views are racist, however I contend that we should not throw out the baby with the bathwater due to some simpletons who cannot distinguish between racial and civic Nationalism. The simple point is, despite my previous anarchic leanings I have come to realize that as much as we might want to simply wish them away, hierarchy and the state are simply facts which cannot be denied. In fact, even in a completely voluntary anarchic society a natural hierarchy would result due to the inherent differences among those involved. Also, a “state” would exist in that all those within this society would fulfill some role which helped the group to function, therefore leading to an organic whole of its citizens, i.e. a state. With that being said, this land, despite our disagreements with its current government or our fellow citizens, is all we have. We grew up here, our parents grew up here, and so on. We cannot escape it. We must make our living here and raise our children here. Therefore, devoid of racial or xenophobic feeling, it is my belief that until our countrymen are able to live in relative security we simply cannot take their chance at housing and employment away from them. This does not equal a complete opposition to all immigration as such, but it does mean a great restriction and selectiveness as well as a drive to ensure the well being of American citizens beforehand.

Furthermore, the economic and political considerations must be explained. We have seen that both Capitalism and Communism are failed experiments. Capitalism has exploited the earth and our countrymen in the name of profit. Natural resources have been and continue to be plundered to such an extent that our environment is on its last leg, yet the tycoons are so deluded in their greed that they do not think of how their money will no longer help them when they have no earth to live on, no more food to eat, and no clean air to breathe. What’s more, profit and the drive to extract foreign lands’ natural resources have lead to a seemingly endless war in the name of “fighting terror”, a war which continues to bankrupt our nation and generate endless contradiction as the very politicians who tell us of this war on terror fund the very terrorists they claim to be fighting. Lastly, and this is the main nail in the coffin of mainstream “Conservative” candidates and the GOP; despite their cries for restoring morality and decency, the Republicans support the Capitalist machine which demands the production of the very societal ills they rally against, again in the name of profit-namely pornography, the sex industry, sexualization of the media and advertising, and so on.

The excesses of Communism should be apparent such that we should not have to enumerate them here, but a simple recounting of the horrors committed by Stalin and the USSR or the Albanian Communists should suffice. Furthermore, the simple reduction of the human being to an economic unit, a number amongst others, the fallacy of dialectical materialism, and the forced atheism of those regimes which have robbed man and society of their transcendant element are enough to warrant our disgust.

With the above considerations it is hoped that the reader could see the desire for an alternative, a third position which melds the desirable aspects of the above systems yet removes from them their excesses. Namely, I am speaking of Corporatism or Syndicalism. Briefly, this refers to a system of cooperatives divided by trade in which the bosses and the workers function together to produce goods which are then overseen by the government to reduce both undesirable surplus and shortages. Furthermore, these cooperatives or syndicates would be able to arbitrate amongst themselves in a labor court. It is hoped that this would remedy the antagonistic attitude of Marxism and Anarchism with their reliance on class warfare and pitting of the employees against the bosses. Of course, as Englebert Dollfuss has pointed out, this also requires that the boss should be willing to consider and see to the needs of his workers. Finally, the government holds the right to determine those goods which are considered harmful to the nation and to ban their production (think of those things which I named above for example-pornography, that which harms the environment, bad food, etc). Finally, in line with the platform of Mosley, I believe a strict stance of Isolationism in the realm of economics is the best solution at this point- no outsourcing of American jobs, no importing of cheap foreign labor, and no globalist trading. Furthermore, this also means an absolute end to governmental foreign aid.

It is hoped that the absolute incompetence at best, or outright betrayal at worst, at the hands of our “democratically elected” leaders who continue time and again to act against the interests and well-being of the American people should be its own argument for the need for a leader, capable and just, who might lead his nation to greatness and prosperity, and who is not a puppet of Congress, the Senate, and especially private interest groups and their donors. Before I did my research, I approached this issue based on emotion and pre-conceived notions. Like many, I thought Fascism and Nationalism to be racist ideologies, however when I put my emotional reactions aside and actually engaged Fascist and Nationalist sources themselves from a purely intellectual basis I saw the sense in them.

Lastly, to address the issue of “Anti-Semitism”. In the above mentioned interview with Sir Oswald Mosley, leader of the British Union of Fascists, the crowd repeatedly accused him of Anti-Semitism. However, Sir Mosley argued that this term actually refers to hating Jews simply because they are born Jewish and that this is not his stance. He went on to explain that he opposed those Jews in Britain who were gunning for a second war with Germany as he wished to keep his nation out of a senseless war. Some might take exception to calling WWII senseless, however to those of us who are sick of seeing our nation lose young men and go further into debt in order to play world police it makes perfect sense. In any case, my position is the same. I do not hate Jews for being Jews, in fact I have Jewish ancestry myself. Rather, I oppose Zionism and the Zionist influence on American politics. I do not and will not approve of the settling of European Jews on the land of Palestinians, the constant Israeli cries for American involvement in war, the constant victimology and condemnation of dissent as racism and Jew hatred, or the continual sucking dry of American tax dollars by an illegal settler state. So now that my platform is clear, I say if that makes me an Anti-Semite then so be it, but I would contend that this is a deliberate misdefinition of the word, and one which has rendered it absolutely meaningless.