Honestly it's refreshing to have an actual take down of fascism that isn't "dictatorship bad" or "h-man". I don't agree with Fascism, but it would be nice if the discourse on it was actually intellectual and not ideological.

Fascinating analysis. It must be emphasized, as you touched on, that Fascism as an ideology places a strong emphasis on *culture struggle* , and as such, should be expected to be flexible in its practice from culture to culture. What defines tradition or culture for an Briton like Mosley contrasts starkly from the tradition of an Italian like Mussolini. The strategy employed by Fascists of appealing to various groups is merely an extension of this principle of culture struggle, where the target demographic isn't laborers exclusively, soldiers exclusively, business-men exclusively (this is a class struggle view of politics), it is the nation or people as a whole, a large enough segment of the native culture, because the grand enemy in the eyes of Fascists isn't native, it is foreign, it belongs to another culture or lacks loyalty to the native culture. In so far as the quotation from Bertele, I believe this speaks to a different type of flexibility, of not being rigid in practice when it comes to pursuing successful revolution; something he likely concluded from observing how Communism only successfully took hold in Russia by being flexible, and that by being flexible in its doctrine, Communism was able to achieve "credibility" and "psychological-historical value" as an ideology despite deviating from it's central doctrine. This would appear to be less a doctrinal feature of Fascism, and more an observation of true practice for most ideologies, most especially those of a revolutionary character; just compare any ideology in theory to that same ideology in practice.

To be fair, mussolini didn't really expected that fascism would actually becoming pretty popular among the far right outside italy. He thought that fascism would just be an ideology exclusive to Italy just like Pancasila in Indonesia and the Three Principles of the People in China (and later Taiwan). That's why he didn't bother to wrote a complete explanation defining fascism because for him,fascism is just a cool word for italian ultranationalism.

Fascism is at the same time hierarchical and egalitarian, futurist and traditionalist, reactionary and revolutionary.

Lavader does what Breadtubers could only dream of doing. Defining Fascism correctly.

Funny how a monarchist breaks down the faults with fascism better than any breadtuber ever could. And without condescending and patronizing their own viewers too.

-It makes sense that fascist movements differ between nations, after all nations are different and therefore their fascist movements will be different. -Even so, there are common elements between them, such as nationalist militarism. -In addition to the fact that they tend to be economically revisionist socialists, that is, socialists who abandoned the rhetoric of Marxist class struggle to embrace cooperation between classes and productivism.

Nice. Synchronicity. I'm glad we're all having this conversation. I was noticing many of us making similar videos on fascism at the same time. Its wild.

Finally a youtuber that explains fascism from its own writers rather than liberal or communist writers liying for what fascism is. Thanks!

fascism does have philosophical, political and economic foundations though, for italian fascism for example, you had the actual idealism of giovanni gentile, the national syndicalism and the concept of myth of georges sorel, later evolving to proper corporatism, etc. of course there were varieties from country to country, that is the point, fascism is culture specific national socialism, for example, had its' foundations laid as far back as the 19th century in the voelkisch movement and the various natsoc parties opposed to interest, read rudolf jung's book, it explains it well stabs in the back and internal conflict is also present in other ideologies, see the purging of the old bolsheviks by stalin for example

the problem with this definition is fascism can mean whatever you want it to mean whatever you want it to mean and you can call anything fascism.

Please do a video on huey Long, the kingfish. He's an actual populist progressive who was seen as a threat once said by FDR

To state that fascism lacks an ideological background is idiotic, i comes clearly from a Hegelian and socialist perspective. Praxis is the root of the world, man changes the circumstances of himself only by taking action, to talk about theory is idiotic, man is shaped by his actions, not his words.

You can offer the academics $1 million if they can give an actual definition of what fascism is and they would still fail to do it. They will refer to Umberto Eco for their definition.

I don’t think that the betrayal of farmers was necessarily true because of the fact that Hitler highly subsidized farming and made sure Germany was self sufficient, farmers had representation within the DAF too. I don’t necessarily think power by any means is “grifting” or lying it seems more or less to be the only smart political strategy which is why bolsheviks used ‘flexible tactics, implacable ideology’ via the use of the party vanguard in order to gain full power. The SA and the fascist paramilitaries were being immature, the System does not allow for easy victory unless you can trick the system to let you in like a trojan horse

So basically, Fascism is more of a template to build upon depending on the national character of a people at any given time. As for the betrayals bit, politicians more often than not lie. Who would have thought that reality is messier than what mere rhetoric could articulate. I think Mussolini would make for a good twitch streamer. No one watches them to hear the facts of the matter, but to make themselves feel justified in believing X, Y or Z and to see how their beloved streamer totally dunked on his opposition. Now it just sounds like every ideology and political party, but more honest about what it really wants and is blatant about it. Essentially, pragmatism applied to politics.

You are among the two youtubers I've seen who get Fascism right, the other being TIK. I always shake my head when historians (who should know better), use these vague definitions to describe Fascism without even bringing up any of the major thinkers of the movement.

Your reading books written by people trying to dismiss Fascism. Fascism does have foundational philosophies and many historical philosophers. However due to it being a socialist form of ideology many of those philosophers tend to go both ways. The economic engine of fascism isn't even fully considered just fascist. Corporatism is something the left thinks is just business cooperating with the government. Is actually the idea that society should be reorganized into interest groups. The state is a term that is no different then how criminals constantly rebrand how they talk about guns. In their liture and speeches when they refer to a state they mean the people. The most notable philosopher whose writing hits that line between left and far right that he's not only still debated today, but his writings are still read in college campus's was Nietzsche. Colleges these days try to dismiss that fact the same way Muslims try to dismiss the idea of releogious extremists by claiming that its all just them misinterpreting the writing. If you understand Nietzsche writing. His complaint on the idea of the domestication of man. Then you'll understand a lot more on why fascism is structured the way it is.

TIKhistory has a good take on it that I recommend, he compares fascism and national socialism to religion and shows which aspect they share with gnosticism.

For Romanian fascism, among the things that influenced the young man who studied Law in Iasi and later created the Legion (Codreanu), is that Romanian literature played a role, which many ignore the importance it had on the country at that time. The traditionalist current, conceived by Nichifor Crainic as a reaction to the modernism imported from France by the literary critic Eugen Lovinescu, said that the village is the heart of the Romanian nation and Christian Orthodoxy is closely linked to the people and a guarantor of the existence of the Romanian people. Nichifor Crainic will work on Iorga's magazine before creating the magazine Gandirea which becomes practically an exposition of the traditionalist current, this magazine and Samanatorul will influence Codreanu quite a lot, which I find interesting. And the modernism was based on synchronicity, the idea that "backward peoples" imitate the advanced ones in order to catch up with them

The socialisation of the factories was the best fascist economic reform

Wow. I'm not a monarchists like u. Idk where I fit on the political compass, I definitely lean left, but this video was very informative. I'VE NEVER heard such an in depth analysis of fascism.

Wake up babe, new Lavader video just dropped 😉

The Germans aren’t fascist they are national socialists. Two distinct socialist ideologies

What do you think about the theory of the "organic state“ imo its the most important thing to understand about fascism.

Another banger. Personally, the best definition I prefer is: Sorelian Syndicalism, Ultra-Nationalism, (In Germany Racialism), Traditional or Futurist depending on the country.

I really liked the video, but I have to say that I am against putting national socialism as a type of fascism, although they have things in common, their origins are totally different.

I agree with this video overall. But, my critique is that sure its honest. But the ''thinkers'' brought up were all active politicians. (Gentile being the exception, but then again you didn't really go into him much). It's a bit like reading Mao and Lenin but skipping Marx. Looking at the leaders of an ideology (who will always be ''grifters'' etc) but not looking behind the veil. Read Oswald Spengler, René Guenon, Carl Schmitt, Julius Evola, Charles Maurras etc if you want a deeper understanding of what is as I agree with you very vagley called ''fascism''.

What I understood from this video, is that fascism is not in fact an ideology, but a way of doing things often employed by syndycalist, socialist-nationalists and other similiar types of ideologies. I hope I did not misunderstand, because I am tired of the term "fascism" being misused and misunderstood.

Before watching this video, let me Note my current Definition of General Fascism (as opposite to historical fascism, which is way blurrier): Fascism is collectivist absolute Machiavelism.

Hello Lavader and could you please talk about colonialism and what consequences it had, since it occurred differently in America and Africa but they still treat the Spanish conquest as the colonization of the Congo by Leopold.

This is why I have a love/hate relationship with Lavader, He's great at explaining the faults & issues of Communism, Fascism and even Democracy (in it's simplest form)... but he's pro-Monarchy, which is the leading cause for revolutions across the world, specifically over the course of the 18th & 19th centuries.

Woohoo can't even leave a comment without KZfaq automatically deleting it.

This will be a very good video

Fascism isn't especially unique in its relation to the people as it pertains to its formation, every ideology, liberalism and Marxism included, is formed from a sort of political miasma which is present in a moment, it is the role of philosophers to codify the results and functions of this miasma into something concrete. And I don't believe fascism's historical methodology conveys much about its ideology, or that it conveys any lack thereof.

The only thing I really know is that fascism was prevalent in monarchist countries and in the case of Spain, for example, it brought the monarchy back. Therefore, the monarchical model is not a guarantee of protection against totalitarian regimes.

Now that you mention it, when I first read the Doctrine of Fascism by Mussolini, it really seemed...Off from other political works, but I could not properly explain it. And when you mentioned all of this I finally realized what was bugging me, the entire work is just Mussolini calling for action and "Communism bad, Liberalism bad, all other things bad" without putting forth an actual socioeconomic or political theory.

Interesting video. I do like the perspective Lavader provides, tackling this subject honestly and not in the typical kitsch liberal way. Where this video fails: no synthesis of argument. Lavader doesnt pull it all together very well but it sounds like the gist is that we agree that Fascism is better understood as a framework rather than a system. His whole critique is that it varies too much by nation to nation. Fascism is probably defined better as a framework or vehicle of governance rather than a codified system. So this ‘critique’ isn’t much of a critique as much as it is an observation. The problem with 1920s-and 1930s texts on fascism by fascists is the same problem a car company has designing a vehicle. The designer makes a beautiful watercolor concept art... ...now the engineer has to make it a reality and in the process of tooling, the final product will certainly differ in one way or another from the concept. Mosley could've written 1M books on Fascism, and it would be theory until the BUF was able to impress on the English nation their British fascism, which of course never happened. Long story short. Theory is nothing without praxis. So yes. It obviously changes and adapts itself to differing local variables. This is common sense. Any communist nation has faced this dilemma. To drive it home to Lavader - any MONARCH would face this dilemma as well. Does this debunk monarchy as an ideology? A king could be liberal, autocratic, etc. In fact, there are kings who have made promises to X interest group and not been able to fulfill them for Realpolitik reasons. I could list dozens of examples. Good video Lavader, but I’m not sure what you are trying to accomplish here.

Although you make fun of lolberts like myself, Id have to say that videos like these are why i can't stop watching.

As a Leftist (Left Bolshevik/Left Communist aligned), I think the problem with the modern left is that they have a distorted view of what fascism is and of course, fascism, by it’s definition, it’s confusing to define; it can be lumped with Socdems and liberals for its idealism. Sometimes, Communists can be lumped with fascism because of Stalin’s economic and social policies sometimes called “red fascism” usually by anarchists. They often underestimate the power and importance that fascism had in the early-mid 20th century which it was both simultaneously proletarian and bourgeois in essence. While those social aspects are decent in practice; it relied on a war economy depending what country we’re talking about and in certain instances, fantasizing about the superiority of the nation (sometimes, race like the Nazis and Banderites have) which is why it is a problematic ideology. There are historical reasons why this happened, but I don’t want to make a long and boring discussion , especially for those that are well read into fascism; even if you’re a leftist.

Fascism is an ideology of pragmatic challenge to the "undirected ideologies". By this definition, it is directly opposed to liberalism and capitalism. It was born from communism and so retains the postmodernist lens, but when issues arise the fascist is free to choose from all the ideologies that came before, to follow the evidence or to follow the cultural zeitgeist. This makes it difficult to pin down where a fascist leader will land in policy terms on any given issue and clocks the decisions as a cult of personality. This is a challenge, but it is not the same as the contention that there is no unity in ideology. As one example all fascist regimes see nationalism in terms of competition, and will ultimately see even other fascist regimes as competition or colonies for their own national destiny. (As a note, it is this pan-nationalism that rejects true nationalism, which is the danger to world peace, and yet commentators never seem to make the distinction).

Thank you for making this video I've been curious about some of the things said more nowadays like socialism and fascism. This has definitely given me something to think about and I hope it gets others to think also.

Jose Antonio primo de rivera discovered this the hard way. An ideology that he intended to be for workers and everyone in general only attracted reaccionaries, and it got him killed in the end. Pobre, pobre Jose Antonio!

This comments section will be interesting I can tell. Haven't even seen the vid yet

What about other variants of facism like baathism like saddam Hussain and peronism in Argentina which is heavy influenced by facism.

I believe that there's no such thing as a generic "fascism" apart from the historical context of Italy - which ways indeed a very defined philosophy (actual idealism, unifiying the whole society around the state as a "solution" to the supposed problem of class struggle, the "Fasci" itself is an Roman symbol of the ideology that signifies the _weak_ united become strong) - there are only other political moviments that took superficial inspiration from it, but none was fascist strictly

LAVADER UPLOAD!! CLICK BOYS!! CLICKKK!!!!

Fascinating

you nailed it.

Nice vid

It seems like the movement is just realpolitik without much window dressing.

Is it really that wrong to be a Fascist?

I largely agree with the idea that Fascism is a very 'vague' idea, it's more akin to a method of rulership on the same lines of democracy, as socialism is a form of economic policy, thus to tie fascism into the same style of ideology as Communism is fiercely misleading as you can have fascism in many forms, but the core of the system is that the state is to be worshipped like that of a god, instead of a cult of personality, it is a cult of the state and often Fascism tends to not really care much about race at all, which lands true for every sect of fascism unless you consider germany fascist, as they would be the one and only movement that was inherently about race, as all the others were explicitly about nation and state.

While I do understand the fact Fascism might not be an ideology the same could be said about Monarchism. The only thing Monarchism agrees on is that a Monarch should be head of state, as to what his powers are. How he is chosen etc is completetly up to the country in question. Thus Fascism nor Monarchism are ideologies

Very good video and very good that this video exists. But it also feels like a lot of core things were completely untouched, like the diversity of ideas in that time perioud or it being an ideology around the existence of other ideologies or people increasingly thinking what future will human nature lead to or any of the corporatism just from one side. That doesn't undermine what it did say, partly just the mess of what is even worth saying. And I mean actualy going into the meaning of these things instead of them just beiing a very simple secondary factor in the final message, but thats a bit of a tangent

14:30 while yes there are variations on fascism, nazism isn’t fascist. For starters it was viewed as distinct before the end of WWII. Hitler and Gobbels were also critical of fascism. Second the major difference is whereas fascism is syndicalism nazism is socialist. Also ironically fascism is more nationalist than national socialism. Hitler’s aryan nation was transnational beyond borders. It comprised germans from Germany, Austria and Czechia.

Interesting, I have never given this much thought and if someone would have asked me to define Fascism I probably would have defined it as somewhere along the line of very expansionist, but especially in the case of Oswald Mosley it isn't really that simple.

I think you make a really good point for how to look at in terms of fundamental differences. I would also add the common essential belief that the people that form the nation are one organism. The Fascists are trying to use different groups to be made the head and then truly "awaken" and masses to collective action, and transcend all other distracting conditions.

bro is monarchist and critic Fascism lol

9:38 wtf is that on the top left, its gonna give me nightmares

You’re one of those guys who I’d love to have a long and complex discussion with, unfortunately it still baffles me how you can make all the right deductions and still come to the most wrong conclusion ever. Jesus ok you’re a monarchist but this shouldn’t stop you from at least acknowledging the intentions of an ideology (because ideology it still is)

Now with this breath of fresh air, we look up around us now and we can see there are literally thousands of fascists in America right now by this definition, which is kinda scary. A deep apathy for the establishment, with a yearning for a new identity. This sums up a lot of sentiments you’ll find in both far left and far right extremities, and don’t get me wrong I hate the establishment and by this standard I’d be fascistic too if I didn’t hold onto classically liberal Jeffersonian beliefs, I’m saved by my conscious awareness of its intoxication and its appeal, it appeals too all people in some form, not just myself. It’s dangerously good at what it does, it’s just like a seed, plant it, water it, and it WILL GROW. Just takes time,

Hi Lavader! If you didn't, I highly recommend reading about the ideology of Hungarism. Especially by the founder, Ferenc Szálassi. The easiest was to define it is "a fusion of christianity, socialism, and nationalism"

Very interesting titles in the modern day Edit: what even is happening at 15:44

A good video about Fascism is from the channel "Brasão de Armas", is in portuguese but you can use sub.

Being Australian, I’ve got my fair share of gripes with how we’ve been treated by our British overlords in the past, but I can’t say that it isn’t sad to see the “mother country” in the state that it’s in

A great summary of fascist ideologies I can recommend is "the fascist style" by Armin Mohler. This one is special because Mohler describes Facism not as an political or intellectual ideology like communism or liberalism but rather a personal style that codes a ideology, for example fascist Italy and Germany had different political ideologies that were the foundation of their states but were run in the same style and that style is Facism.

This is why I will never be a fascist, I believe in honest and consensual power, to win through deceit is not winning at all.

Mussolini nationalized 75% of the Italian economy. You're acting as if he didn't rule as a socialist. He didn't need to nationalize 100% to force these companies to do what the government wanted... So he still took the same actions as a socialist but without direct ownership. It's a trivial difference... The end result is the same socialist policies from wage controls, to prove controls, to guaranteed work programs, etc

Facsism is the opposite of communism, because whereas communists imagine a utopia, but can't figure out how to create it, facsists have are creating a future, but don't know what it entails. Now this is not an original thought of mine, I know that. I have heard smth similar a long time ago from someone else. So this is paraphrased. And it not even have been about facsism. What I do know is, that communists had this description. I dont remember the word which was used though. There should be a special word for this, I think.

I am happy to see your work ! Also you seems interested about french politics. I am myself a french royalist. I would be happy to discus with you about political philosophy or some lest news ( not sure if I know enought for the discuss by the way). Have a nice day !

You ought to read Umberto Eco's essay on the matter, you have a take similar to his.

Sometimes the correct answer is the most obvious and most simple one-

Bro actually just obliterated Fascism without resorting to Ideological bias, how did he do it?

You never made the part 2 with wolfgang

The word debut is French, and the letter t is silent. It sounds like de-beau.

Im a fascist my self, but this is a good video

"Everything inside the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state"

You did a nice job on trying to define fascism, though i think you could have emphasized the idea of Order and strength, which i reckon is the most crucial aspect of fascism. (btw, "fascism" is one of the variants of this idea applied politically, i think the term third position makes it easier for the discussion) This is no original idea, as Karl Popper traced the roots of 3rd position to Plato´s Republic, where it is established that the ideal government is made up of a ruler who is part of the gold soul class, aka the philosopher kings, and has auxiliaries who have silver souls. They rule over the masses, who have bronze souls. There is also Nietzsche´s influence on the nsdap, with the idea of the superman, the strong and the weak, i guess you must have understood it by now. The idea of a supreme and strong ruler, the high praise of all things national as superior, are aspects of this idea. You can also see it in their aesthetics As for your criticisms, i honestly think most of them could be applied to any ideology and are just part of real politics, shaping yourself to be more appealing, and giving up on more radical ideas. I do agree that 3rd position doesn´t have a rigid theory when in comparison to liberalism and socialism, but i feel that´s kind of the point. Defending the interests of the national popualtion is their only general trait, and that obviously varies from nation to nation.

Wait , but doesn't Napoleon fit in this definition of fascism? And Stalin, and probably even Mao...

The problem with the switching of constituency as breaking of promises is that the same where don by the Bolsheviks and the Maoist as they consolidated Power. Fascism as a revolutionary movement hadn't the time to develop an end game or create doctrines for the next generation of leaders that itself makes it hard to compare to ideologys wich a around for far longer. As i understand it Fascisms core doctrine is the total veneration of the state to overcome class and race struggle and so build a stronger nation. That's why i don't think national socialist are fascist but they own distinct group.

The chuddies arent going to like this

that makes a lot of sense A long time ago in Egypt There was a fascist party called the Young Egypt Party At first, they were pharaohist (Pharaonism) but after they saw only the middle-class People like the ideologies, they immediately became Islamist to gain more support. They never were pharaohist They only cared about gaining power.

Every Other Ideology: Here is my 9 thousand points of worldview and my 500 year lecture reinforced with facts and philosophy Fascism: Fuck it, we ball

Fascism = revolutionary syndicalism on the national level, only difference between marxist syndicalism and fascism is that fascism aims to unify the country by nationality, unite the people behind the nation, while marxism is international, fascism is national. They are both socialism on the economic scale. Hitler was not a fascist, he never once called himself or his party fascist, he was a national socialist. Fascism and Nazism is very different, Hitler did not like fascism and criticised it.

Fascism is to the Right what Communism is to the Left: "the" democratic ideology par excellence with its apocalyptic & messianic overtones. National Democratism in the case of Fascism; International Democratism in the case of Communism. But both are false dichotomies and political religions inherited from the godless French Revolution. The German Revolution of 1933 is the equivalent of the French Revolution of 1789. The differences in beliefs and motives and outcomes are mostly due to the different histories of both countries. But democracy is always xenophobic, in its essence. What people forget or perhaps are ignorant of, is the fundamentally xenophobic aspect of the French Revolution. So for the Germans, it was the Jews and other minorities. For the French, it was the Alsatians, the Bretons, the Vendeans, the Germans, the English etc. But the xenophobia in the case of Nazism in Germany was racially-based, while in the case of the French Revolution, it was culturally-based. Jewish converts to Catholicism were still considered Jews, while it was possible to "convert" to the ideals of the French Revolution. At the same, every counter-revolutionary was a "Vendean", irrespective of where he truly came from. This is quite simplified, but yeah, for the meantime it's not bad. anyway -- reject the French Revolution, begome gounter-revolutionary

Why is ir that much of my thoughts in my head are said by KZfaqrs??😂 By that, I mean that yes, in the first half of the video, as I understood, I can agree that Fascism is a complex "Ideology", and doesn't neccaserily follow a specific doctraine, simply because Fascism as a Nationalist ideology should appeal to their specific Nation, diffrent people with diffrent religions, diffrent histories, diffrent traditions, etc.

this is like, every other ideology ever

Can’t beat constitutional monarchy

Just say you don't understand Fascism's philosophical basis and move on.

the fact he posts this literally right after i finished schindlers list is scary

26:40 Unless you label fascism as a method.

Two points first off,doesn't every regime do that,contradict itself or become more flexible for the sake of power or long term interest?we see it perfectly today,the US at the same time calls for the respect of International law on one side(Russia)and completely disregards it on the other side(Israel)Secondly,you say that every fascism was different in every country,well can't you say that with more set ideologies such as say Marxism?,after all the USSR,Yugoslavia,Cuba,China, and North Korea ect...all developed their own brand of Socialism,from the same philosophy of Marx,you even find this in pre-modern times,in monarchies,what about when France teamed up with the Ottomans or the Protestants to screw catholic Hapsbourg Austria,wasn't France as a Catholic monarchy in contradiction?

I think what you're describing is best called actualism

Having ideas oriented towards power does not somehow disqualify them from being legitimate political ideas. It is not fascism, but the so called “convention” which are the real aberration. The viewing of political positions as being constructed out of sets of positions is simply not how they are made, as they are instead based on essential characteristics, and more particular positions only in consideration of the essentials. For liberalism for example, the subject is the individual, and the positions liberals hold, far from forming liberalism, simply flow out of analyzing what is best for the individual. For fascism, the state, or in your words “power” is the subject, and the state or power in general is simply more variable than the individual in general, or the working class in general in the case of communism, which is enough to explain why fascism breaks the so called conventions of ideology, without any higher level abnormality.

So Fascism is the Eevee of political ideologies?

Excellent analysis my monarchist friend. So in essence one can say fascism is the ideology of the both stupid and angry, in both its leaders and followers. Really makes you think about some rise of fascism again with people angry at the status quo, for whatever reason, be it economical or a perceived slight. Also shows clearly it can be both left and right, but is traditionally seen as right.

i don't see any problems to what you just said and i as a racial Pan European Nationalist always knew

The reality of Fascism is that it does, actually, have an ideological core, just that the ideological core is philosophically skeptical and not epistemological. The base is a denial of “objective material truth” as a central myth. The direct opposite basically summarizes Fascism. It is the attempt to create a subjective, spiritual actuality. The main problem being that this ends up lifting up false gods as if they were otherwise. This inevitably causes the problems when the local artifacts (what the enlightenment would call “superstitions”), the local cultures get artificially made into divinities. In essence, Fascism is the attempt to repaganify the modern world, overthrowing secular order. The leaders of fascism, being human are rarely actually committed to the ideology, themselves being aware that the god they seek to make is not yet a god. To overcome this barrier, and actually elevate a god into godhood would be an act of divinity itself, and hence never really happens. Fascism’s goal, like Socialism is futile. There is no way for humans to realistically create a god, at best it can be an accidental mishap. Likewise, there is no way for humans to create a Utopian society as the socialists try, as complexity of society itself grows exponentially while the ability to deal with it grows linearly (so long as it remains modern). Liberalism has a similar problem, absolute freedom is similarly impossible. However, unlike Fascism and Socialism, the means of Liberalism, while being futile for the end effort, end up being empirically superior to all other modern ideologies. It is completely accidental that Liberalism dominates its younger Modern brothers. Postmodernism, and Metamodernism are the attempts of Liberals to self justify itself (a futile effort). Nihilism and Traditionalism are anti-modern attempts to resolve the core issue that humans are driven by storytelling and abstracting their behavior, mostly by denying one of those characteristics respectively. So what to do? No idea, Modernity has failed to be justified, post and meta modernity remain unconvincing. Pre-modernity and anti-modernity also fail, and continue to fail. There seems to be no Earthly salvation.

The Gigachad Engelbert Dollfuß being the only exception, of course