Counter-Currents has published the conclusory paper in the series called “Deleuze, Guattari, and the New Right.” The fourth part is quite different from the first three, so if you hated those papers you might want to have a look at this one. Then again, if you tend towards truth, morality, conservatism, nationalism, or other aspects of liberal logos and politics, you’re just as well to avoid this one too. In it, I trade in my fascio-nationalism for a burgeoning version of Jack Donovan’s anarcho-fascism. In laymen’s terms, this means that I allowed Deleuze and Guattari to problematize my faith in Fascism. It also means that I’ve decided to be a better Nietzschean.
Just as liberal/democratic scholars do extreme violence to Nietzsche in order to mold him to their bourgeois needs so to do Fascist and other nationalist scholars. Instead of molding Nietzsche to fit Fascism’s needs, I used him to discern what is counter-modern in Fascism, leaving nationalism and international militarism by the wayside, while focusing instead on the will, instincts, and ethics of Fascist heroism. Of course, my anti-national Fascism was formed in Rome, amongst Fascists that rally around a bi-color flag of red and yellow and understand the liberal Italian State as a colonizing force, so it’s not like I was ever committed to a Statist solution to a Statist problem.
What is new is that I am actually advocating anarchism and any type of micro-rebellions that will shake the foundations of the liberal State. These micro-rebellions are described as ontological events in D&G 4, but one should also see them as epistemological possibilities – as the creation of opportunities to force thought to think, as Deleuze so beautifully explains the derelict space that is Nietzsche’s oeuvre. We need bombs and explosions to damage our most cherished beliefs, in order to make sure that they truly serve our needs and not those of liberalism, the State, capitalism, or the bourgeois Last Man that lurks in each of us. In other words, we need to shake up the New Right just a bit, and force our thought to affirm and create. As Deleuze explains, quoting Nietzsche, “‘It is not guilty pride but the ceaselessly reawaken instinct of the game which calls forth new worlds.’ Not a theodicy but a cosmodicy, not a sum of injustices to be expiated but justice as the law of this world; not hubris but play, innocence.”
This has prompted me to reconceptualize the New Right and its goals in a way that still allows me space to move amongst the white nationalists. Thus, you will notice my use of revolutionary Right instead of New Right. Nota bene that I am using revolution purposefully, as it is a concept that needs to be stripped of its Leftist connotations, even as it is highly modern, as Hakim Bey explains in TAZ. At the end of the day, there is no way to suggest that we are anything but modern men in revolt against modernity, so I am comfortable with the compromise – at least for now, anyway; because now we have a host of other problems to make of ourselves in this world. To create we must affirm, but to affirm we must destroy.
We need to ask ourselves how much of the utopia that we design is motivated by our current comforts – both material/ontological and spiritual/epistemological? How much of those comforts is the work of ressentiment and laziness? How much of what we value owes itself to its timeliness? And as men and women who have embraced an untimely – uncommon, illiberal, violent, aristocratic – form of life, how are we compromised by our willingness to celebrate ideas, concepts, values, moralities, theologies, politics, and just plain assumptions and vulgar opinions that are utterly modern in form and content?
How do we know what we know, at who’s benefit, and at what cost?
What is the price of heroes?
 Nietzsche and Philosophy 25.