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.”[1]
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?
[1] Nietzsche and Philosophy 25.
markdyal 
Article Reblogged by http://www.southweb.org – Keep up the great work! –SWB Editor
A very interesting series. As a former leftist disgusted with the anarchist left, I turned to the new right. Now I see that the new right is turning to the anarchist left. What a hoot!
I am not going in a circle, but a spiral.
I just want to suggest a couple of books that you may find interesting from the left. Pacifism as Pathology Reflections on the role of armed struggle in North America by Ward Churchill with Mike Ryan. The other is Welcome to the Machine, science, surveillance, and the culture of control by Derrick Jensen and George Draffan. Both are pretty anti-enlightenment and anti Gandhian. Although I think they miss Gandhi’s subterfuge which worked because he knew how to play the British. I think it would be very helpful to learn from both sides. However, since I have been reading alot of more rightist books, I think the right has the backing of the ‘spirit’ of Whites while the left gets bogged down in emotionalism and egoism.
Thanks for the recommendations. I used to be quite familiar with Ward Churchill, but with the others I am completely unfamiliar.
It might be a stretch to say that the Right is moving toward anarchism. Some of us are trying to make links beyond liberal politics that reach into all areas of political philosophy and action. Others, however, are perfectly content to continue ignoring certain thoughts and strategies simply because they are of the Left.
It is true, though, that the New Right seeks a politics and form of life that offer a great deal more than what the Left is peddling. Rights to inclusion in the liberal machine are increasingly becoming a hard-sell. We can make them even harder to sell by uniting with dissidents all over the world who are fighting for autonomy and sovereignty; but to do so would mean an end to the purely racial politics of the North American New Right.
Hi! Mr. Dyal, would you agree with the definition of fascism as being nomocentric, apollonian and dionysian, paranoid and schizophrenic, elitist and populist, and revolutionary? Are these the essential caracteristics of Nietzscheism, and of Mussolinian fascism? Did I read you correctly?
Is there any chance Greg Johnson will be interviewing you in the near future? I think Counter-Currents should go fully Nietzschean-Heideggerian-Deleuzean.
Best wishes.
The first three times I read your question about fascism I thought you’d confused a lot of information in your desire to understand fascism simply. Now, it seems you are somewhat correct – at least in that one could discuss elements of fascism that touched on each of these areas.
It is nomocentric in the sense that it rejects the liberal logoi. But, it retains the biggest logos of all: the State.
In this sense it is Apollonian and Dionysian – seeking order but also unchained beauty, fury, and aggression.
In D&G’s terms, it is purely paranoid. In mine, it is both paranoid and schizophrenic, but I’m leaning more toward the paranoid pole right now. The pre-PNF squadristi were certainly schizophrenic, but these were literally dismantled in order to consolidate State power. I don’t blame Mussolini for taking such measures, however.
Italian Fascism was elitist in the liberal sense, because it desired an elite political class, but also traditionally elitist because it sought to create an elite hardened by steel and warfare.
It is populist. Period.
It is revolutionary because of the critique of modernity that lies at its intellectual origins, but unless it is willing to sacrifice the State, it can never be Nietzschean or truly revolutionary. The State keeps it bound up with internationalism and the economic rationale of modern man. This is only revolutionary to someone happy with modernity.
Finally, there can be no Nietzschean fascism because of the State, Apollo, reaction/paranoia, bourgeois warfare, and populism. One can attempt to build bridges between Nietzsche and fascism but just don’t try to carry Nietzsche across that bridge.
Greg interviewed me last year. Unless there is a clamor for more of my ramblings, I doubt we will see another interview. It was not my best moment/hour.
Hopefully CC will continue to be a lot of things. For sure, the Hegel/Plato/WN strain is going nowhere. Some balance is all I hope for.
Fascists are the only true anarchists.
Anti-Statist fascists like the ones I lived amongst in Rome fit the bill. In general, I’m not sure. In micro-politcal terms there is a huge gulf between a true fascist and a true anarchist. I guess we are seeing fewer “true” adherents to either philosophy – and thats a good thing.